Knight of L-sama
That's a true wignut indeed but it's more of a CTSTDT, at least as it stands.
Though it does beg the question is who or what he does believe created us?
11/21/2008 10:39:49 AM
"Darwin was wrong as the entire concept of intermediary steps in evolution is fundamentally flawed as the changes would have initally been defects hindering the host and its elimination via natural selection. "
No no no. MOST mutations aren't beneficial, but the few that are (or just aren't harmful) get passed on. Feedback loop. FAIL!
11/21/2008 10:48:53 AM
"Stop misinterpreting similarities as genetic ancestry"
Your son was born ginger wasn't he :(
Edit: Ah Daily Mail that explains a lot
11/21/2008 11:06:12 AM
"Stop misinterpreting similarites as genetic ancestry and accept that whilst all life shares similar building-block we are not related."
Translation: Screw the evidence!
11/21/2008 11:12:08 AM
Yes, let's all believe the big lie of creationism and close our mind forever.
11/21/2008 11:19:20 AM
11/21/2008 11:25:13 AM
We have not "evolved" from anything we were created and not by the God of our misguided religions.
you think that we were creted, but not by any of the gods of our religions?
So who created us according to your beliefs?
I´m surprised to see a creationist who is obviously outside of christianity or islam
11/21/2008 11:32:37 AM
"We have not "evolved" from anything we were created"
We have the fossils. We win.
"the entire concept of intermediary steps in evolution is fundamentally flawed as the changes would have initally been defects"
We have the anti-biotic resistant bacteria. We win (sorta).
"whilst all life shares similar building-block we are not related."
We (and chimpanzees) have the ERVs. We win.
11/21/2008 11:46:17 AM
Ah, the Daily Heil.
11/21/2008 12:16:00 PM
What the fuck are you talking about..because it definitely NOT modern biology...um, similarites and genetic ancestry IS, by their own inherent properties, absolute proof of decent with modification. You shot yourself in the foot with that one.
11/21/2008 12:19:31 PM
"Stop misinterpreting similarities as genetic ancestry "
Stop misinterpreting your ignorance as knowledge.
11/21/2008 12:23:14 PM
So which religions are the misguided ones?
11/21/2008 12:28:36 PM
Yep, daily mail.
11/21/2008 12:35:53 PM
A creationist fundie who doesn't beleive in God?
Just when you think you've seen it all, somthing new comes along.
11/21/2008 1:02:45 PM
...we are not related.
...all life shares similar building-block[s]...
Am I the only one who sees the logic-disconnect here?
11/21/2008 1:02:48 PM
Bunkum? Is it wrong that one word confuses me more than the rest of the post? What the hell is "bunkum"?
11/21/2008 1:16:13 PM
a mind far far away
Evolution doesn't work that way. That's a nice shot at using logic, but it doesn't work that way, either.
11/21/2008 1:17:24 PM
kicker of fundie nuts
OK, the next fundie who tries to sound more eloquent by using the term "whilst" in place of "while" is getting kicked right in the nuts. We know that you're an idiot, and dressing up your moronic piffle with a couple of fancy words isnt going to fool anyone. Same thing for using the puke-inducing "Adam and Steve" thing....oh yeah man, right in the nuts.
11/21/2008 2:07:06 PM
11/21/2008 2:11:57 PM
11/21/2008 2:17:16 PM
The poster is at least partially right...he clearly has not evolved...
11/21/2008 2:45:02 PM
You heard it, Bobby at dailymail has disproved evolution now I realize what idiots we've all been.
11/21/2008 2:51:02 PM
"This is bunkum!"
What the hell? Are you living in the 1920s? Seriously, bunkum? Ha!
"We have not "evolved" from anything we were created and not by the God of our misguided religions."
That's strange. All the evidence seems to indicate the exact opposite of your position. If you don't mind, I'll accept reality over your version of events. Reality has ever so slightly more credibility.
"Darwin was wrong as the entire concept of intermediary steps in evolution is fundamentally flawed as the changes would have initally been defects hindering the host and its elimination via natural selection."
So, going from brown eyes to blue would be a "defect" that hinders the one born with some intermediary shade? What about a lightening of skin tone when going to climates with more cloud cover? Was that also a "defect" that would immediately render the population unviable?
Why is it you people think some major change has to happen before it's evolution?
"Stop misinterpreting similarities as genetic ancestry and accept that whilst all life shares similar building-block we are not related."
Superficial physical similarities aren't why we accept common ancestry. Genetics which show the same fucking genes which couldn't be there without common ancestry is why we accept it.
11/21/2008 3:13:20 PM
This is bunkum!
No, no, no! The delivery is all wrong. Do it like this.
This! Is! Bunkum!
Oh, 300 references, will you ever grow old?
11/21/2008 3:56:17 PM
Arts_Myth wrote: "Oh, 300 references, will you ever grow old?"
Darwinist: A thousand journals of the scientific establishment descend upon you. Our facts will blot out the sun!
Bobbios: Then we shall lie in the shade!
11/21/2008 4:07:47 PM