RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Incredible., creationist or parody?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,19:21   

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe...._people

Pretty #### funny stuff. It is near impossible to tell if posters are serious or just taking the piss.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,19:37   

TRoutMac opines....
Quote
The "kinds" spoken of in the Bible could end up meeting up with one of our taxonomic categories already… maybe phyla. Who knows? (I'm certainly not claiming to know that it does, but I've heard it suggested and I think it's a reasonable speculation.)


I wonder if TRoutMac is channelling AFDave.

Maybe we could send TRoutMac a copy of the AFDave UCGH II thread where we destroy this notion.

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,19:40   

Quote
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,19:56   

Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 15 2007,20:40)
Quote
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232

And that won post of the year for 2005 here.  See post #3.
http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp

In fact, the whole site is a hoot.

http://www.fstdt.com/

Pictures too.  I'm adding this to my favorites.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,20:13   

That is indeed a great site.

Quote
"No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."

   
Drew Headley



Posts: 152
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,20:21   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Jan. 15 2007,19:21)
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe...._people

Pretty #### funny stuff. It is near impossible to tell if posters are serious or just taking the piss.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


HAHAHA!


HA!

(Realizes the posters could be honest)
:(

   
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,20:22   

There's really no comparison between regular tard and Anti-Evo tard.

That A-E tard is just the rib-splittingest...!

When will those stupid scientist's discover that big source of energy in the day sky, anyway...?  I mean, wouldn't you think they'd at least have spotted their shadows by now?

Nobody could make this stuff up: fresh A-E tard, hot off the griddle.

<Insert row of davetard smilies.>

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,20:39   

Quote

TRoutMac | Wed, 2007-01-03 20:22
Thanks for that link, Patrick. Interesting read. The author is obviously rather ignorant about this site when he writes:

"The site is intriguing though, as it provides a forum (sheltered from all commentary from evolutionists, just like UD) for young people who believe in intelligent design to voice their opinion, and when I started to read some of the entries I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry."

Well, certainly stubborn, dogmatic Darwinists have been excluded from the site recently because they merely spout their talking points and won't answer the tough questions. But it's obvious that Darwinists are not ejected because they are Darwinists. From my perspective, seems Darwinists are welcomed on the site as long as they are students and even more importantly, as long as they are willing to actually have a discussion.


Got that evilutionists? You don't answer the tough questions that ID does.

>Who is the designer?
>What did the designer design?
>When did the designer design stuff?
>How old is the Earth?

FFS. More tard than you can shake a stick at.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,21:04   

very first comment on that post:

Quote
I too have read "Of Pandas and People", and I can strongly recommend it to any family who wishes to immunize their children against the godless doctrines of darwininan evolution.


Is there anything more to say, really?

It's too late for logic to help this person, and they make yet another datapoint supporting the idea that this kind of religious viewpoint is little more than cultism.

Only serious intervention by a professional psychologist could unwind the broken compartmentalization this person exhibits.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,21:14   

What's that acronym I can never remember? PRAA? Points Refuted Again and Again?

SLOT. Cripes. It's like a broken record. Oh, wait. According to AF Dave, I'm the broken record.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,21:40   

PRATT: Point Refuted A Thousand Times  :)

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,21:44   

Quote
SLOT. Cripes. It's like a broken record. Oh, wait. According to AF Dave, I'm the broken record.


here's my broken record:

these folks use projection like white on rice.

yes, projection; that's their chief weapon.

projection and denial.

Their two chief weapons are projection and denial.

projection, denial, and fear mongering.

Their THREE weapons are fear, denial and projection... and fanatical devotion to authority figures...

Their FOUR.. no.. amongst their weaponry are such elements as...

wait, I'll come in again...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,21:55   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 15 2007,19:04)
very first comment on that post:

Quote
I too have read "Of Pandas and People", and I can strongly recommend it to any family who wishes to immunize their children against the godless doctrines of darwininan evolution.


Is there anything more to say, really?

It's too late for logic to help this person, and they make yet another datapoint supporting the idea that this kind of religious viewpoint is little more than cultism.

Only serious intervention by a professional psychologist could unwind the broken compartmentalization this person exhibits.

I'm pretty sure both the OP and the first comment were parodies.  That site attracts parodists far better then actual highschoolers.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,21:59   

Quote
these folks use projection like white on rice.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, my dog! (No, I don't have a dog, nor a Tasmanian wolf, either.)
 
Quote
Well, certainly stubborn, dogmatic Darwinists have been excluded from the site recently because they merely spout their talking points and won't answer the tough questions. But it's obvious that Darwinists are not ejected because they are Darwinists. From my perspective, seems Darwinists are welcomed on the site as long as they are students and even more importantly, as long as they are willing to actually have a discussion.

Hey, ah, TroutMAC. Look here.

(Hey, I appear suddenly as "Anonymous." What up?)

These intellectual wonders really shouldn't trumpet the work of Carolus Linnaeus:  
Quote
Linnaeus was also a pioneer in defining a now discredited concept of "race" as applied to humans. Within Homo sapiens he proposed four taxa of a lower (unnamed) rank. These categories are, Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus, and Europeanus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later skin color. Each race had certain characteristics that were endemic to individuals belonging to it. Native Americans were reddish, stubborn, and angered easily. Africans were black, relaxed and negligent. Asians were sallow, avaricious, and easily distracted. Europeans were white, gentle, and inventive. Linnaeus's races were clearly skewed in favour of Europeans. Over time, this classification led to a racial hierarchy, in which Europeans were at the top. Members of many European countries use the classification scheme to validate their conquering or subjugation of members of the "lower" races. In particular the invented concept of race was used to enforce the inhumane institution of slavery, particularly in the new world European colonies.
In addition, in Amoenitates academicae (1763), he defined Homo anthropomorpha as a catch-all race for a variety of human-like mythological creatures, including the troglodyte, satyr, hydra, and phoenix. He claimed that not only did these creatures actually exist, but were in reality inaccurate descriptions of real-world ape-like creatures.


--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2007,22:06   

Quote
I'm pretty sure both the OP and the first comment were parodies.


My only change then, would be to ask to borrow your irony meter.

It's not like we haven't seen exactly these words coming out of folks like Creobot Dave.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,01:59   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Jan. 16 2007,03:44)
yes, projection; that's their chief weapon.

projection and denial.

Their two chief weapons are projection and denial.

projection, denial, and fear mongering.

Their THREE weapons are fear, denial and projection... and fanatical devotion to authority figures...

Their FOUR.. no.. amongst their weaponry are such elements as...

wait, I'll come in again...

{POOF}

{Dastardly discord}

Cardinal Dembski: "Nooooooooooobody expects the Intelligent Design Creationist Vice Strategy."

"Cardinal Biggles! Fetch.........The Comfy Delusion!"

{Dastardly music}

{Lots of people running around saying "The Comfy Delusion?"}

CD: "Now, filthy Evolutionist, How do you plead?"

{Evolutionist looks bored}

CD: "Cardinal Biggles! Poke him with the soft arguments."

"CONFESS!!! CONNNNNNNNFESSSS!!"

Cardinal Biggles: "It doesn't seem to be working, Lord."

CD: "Have you got all the really fallacious arguments up one end?"

CB: "Yes, Lord."

CD: "Hmmm, have you out actual evidence in there?"

CB: "Ooops, yes Lord. Some evidence appears to have crept in, unfortunately it supports the Evolutionist, Lord."

CD: "Well throw it out and put in some special pleading."

CB: "Ok, Lord."

{Sound of scurrying footsteps}

{Sound of overwhelming evidence being thrown away}

{Sound of special pleading and a well wrapped bible with a few obvious identifying marks being shoehorned into a soft argument case}

CB: "Done, Lord."

CD: "Ah, good. Poke him with it"

{Sound of bored Evolutionist being poked with flabby argument, poor rhetoric, and some rather obvious biblical tripe}

CD: "CONFESS!!!! CONNNNNNNFESSSS!!!!"

{Sound of this being repeated ad nauseum}

Lumes extinguent

Exeunt omnes

Plaudit plebes


Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,07:13   

I think it's a parody.
I hope it's a parody.
But it points up, yet again, the fact that there's really no way to know. The real creationists do, in fact, write similar stuff.

Anyway, I infer from the fact that it appears on OE that the OE administrators don't think it's a parody; it's not as if they bend over backwards to give ID critics the benefit of the doubt for the sake of open exchange and all that.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2007,09:04   

[b\"This is not quite true because avian and mammalian are flawed taxonomical concepts. So there are no mammals or avis in the sense that evolutionists define those groups. Consequently there is no such thing as mammalian or avian DNA."[/b]

OMG - I just can't stand it  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
  17 replies since Jan. 15 2007,19:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]