(Question: Christians,when you watch "Shrek",do you think it's real,since it too has a talking donkey like in the bible?)
Atheists, when watching "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" do you think it's real, since it too has animals mutating into human-like creatures like in the THEORY of evolution?
52 comments
*Sigh* Time for the usual, unfortunately necessary statement;
THEORY =/= HYPOTHESIS
TOE is not "just a theory", it has lashings of evidence.
I like to think that, unlike fundies, the rest of the world is capable of separating fact and fiction...
Joke's on you; TMNT was based on a true story.
Yeah, but they weren't Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they were pirates. And they didn't see a dime.
It's where the whole Pirate v Ninja thing started. There's still an ongoing legal battle between the TMPT and the owners of the comics/ shows/ movies over the money.
One internet meme later, though, and, well...
"I think both questions are stupid."
Yes, but the first question was obviously sarcastic/satirical. I don't think the first person actually thinks Christians believe in Shrek (even if he or she did clearly want to antagonize them) whereas the response shows no understanding of either evolution or irony.
No, turtles don't have the same voice system.
Also, their bone structure can't support bipedal locomotion.
Now, Transformers... That could fucking happen!
"Atheists, when watching "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" do you think it's real, since it too has animals mutating into human-like creatures like in the THEORY of evolution?"
*sigh*
Humans are animals, moron. Please, reclassify us if you believe we don't belong in the animal kingdom. You may even create a new kingdom if you wish but you must explain why humans, and humans alone, should occupy it. If you resort to claiming a "soul" or "breath of life" or "god breathed" or any other religious twaddle you'll need to provide evidence of such first.
Good luck.
I agree with J-Hay.
The first question is a bit snarky and sarcastic, but it is pointing out a valid problem with people thinking that talking donkeys are absolutely credible in the Bible, even though in any other setting they see them as silly fiction. Presumably the same goes for talking snakes, talking incendiary shrubs, and so on.
The second question fired back in retort, while admittedly somewhat more witty than usual on the surface of it, completely ignores and sidesteps the completely valid point raised by the first question without answering it and instead tries to push the same point against ostensibly foolish beliefs of evolution accepters, but it does so by mischaracterizing (i.e., lying about) evolutionary theory, dealing with a "mutant strawman" of what it properly postulates. That isn't wit; that's dishonesty -- or, if this is what this person truly thinks evolutionary theory claims, at the very least it is arrogant ignorance.
In all honesty, the retort was about as clever as the original slam. That is to say, not very clever.
Atheist and Christian both fail.
OH SNAP.
Both questions are condescending, not conducive to rational discussion and based upon strawman generalizations.
TL;DR: Fail questions are fail. Both askers need a clue-by-four to the FACE.
Nevermind the obligatory "that's not how evolution works" comment. I would just like to answer this question with another.
When you watch the Flintstones, do you think it's real since it depicts dinosaurs and humans living together like in the IDEA* of creationism?
* note that creationism cannot be considered a theory because it is not testable. It is a thought, of no more scientific value than "I want a burrito for lunch."
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
