1 2 3 4
Didn't do well in biology, did you?
2/28/2009 12:02:29 AM
Only he came up with a coherent theory that in some small way helped to shape the world you live in. So bow down and praise Darwin because without him you couldn't spout your ignorant drivel across the internet.
2/28/2009 12:08:03 AM
This guy forgets that Evolution is happening. Deaths are increasing due to the ever changing(evolving) cancer strains, the altering(evolving) influenza virus, and the hoardes of bacteria that evolve faster because we use antibacterial soaps that kill 99.9%, but the .1% come back to haunt us.
2/28/2009 12:13:58 AM
Was he a pathetic loser, a naive dunce who totally made a deathbed conversion OMG FURREALZ!!eleventy or Hitler? Make up your mind.
2/28/2009 12:17:50 AM
Keep digging that hole, buddy. Maybe the Republicans can win an election that matters again in another 20 years.
2/28/2009 12:25:00 AM
Anyone mention the fact that Einstein was an academic failure as well
2/28/2009 12:27:15 AM
Evo-atheists? - The Catholic Church and Anglican Church accept evolutionary theory.
Academic Failure? - Expressing a theory that still holds broadly true over 150 years on, and is used as the basis for much of biology?
Not getting theology right? - How's that going for you guys? What is the one true sect of Christianity?
Isaac Newton? - Genius who spent much of his time on alchemy?
2/28/2009 12:34:05 AM
If he was so pathetic then how come all you fundtards spend so much of your lives trying desperately to discredit him in some way??
2/28/2009 12:35:57 AM
Lying for Jeezus!!!
2/28/2009 12:37:03 AM
The only way to reason with this level of moron is to punctuate arguments with a sturdy club.
However, in the interest of truth, I must point out that Darwin was a gifted student and his academic records are widely available. The closest he came to an academic "failure" was deciding that he was too sensitive to deal with the gore and suffering of treating patients as a physician.
One question which is seldom explored is: what did Darwin do in the twenty years between his voyage and the publication of the Origin of Species? He spent that time in the scholarly pursuit of support and refutation of his evolving theory. He read the works of the greatest scientists preceding him and corresponded with the greatest scientists of his day.
Some of that correspondence survives. When he was writing to a learned expert, he used precise scientific terminology at the cutting-edge of 19th century science. The actual content of On the Origin of Species was geared to interested amateurs of the time.
On the many subjects unrelated to his specific theory he expressed a thorough understanding of contemporary scientific achievement. And it's apparent that he spent his life learning and applying that knowledge.
To call such a man, even if everything he published is wrong, a "academic failure" is a lie. A simple, bald-faced, easily refuted lie.
2/28/2009 12:39:47 AM
Scientific training does not a scientist make. Granted, it helps NOW, but back in Darwin's time that was not uncommon. Really all you need to be a scientist is curiosity, attention to detail, and a willingness to find out what you don't know (and whether anyone else knows). The massive amount of information we have on science now makes a structured learning program a huge advantage for someone just starting out.
If I were worried about that "fact" I and others wouldn't be able to defend it logically (and it's been 150 years for crying out loud), we'd just bluster and bluff like you would do if pressed.
And finally, we DO NOT worship Darwin any more than we worship Pasteur or Boyle; you just don't make as big a deal about their work because it doesn't disagree with your precious book.
2/28/2009 12:41:26 AM
Darwin ain't my hero.
I'm kinda a fan of Carl Sagan's inspirational writing and speaking style, but he ain't my hero either.
2/28/2009 1:17:58 AM
"The Evo-atheists can’t stand the FACT that their big hero was a nobody..."
Look, up in the sky!
It's a bird,
It's a plane,
It's Super Darwin! Dant-de-dant, de-dant-den-did-dant!
2/28/2009 1:25:24 AM
Thomas Edison would have thrown you bodily out of his house.
2/28/2009 1:27:51 AM
No, you're not supposed to worship him. Nobody said you were supposed to worship him. I think you have a worship reflex.
2/28/2009 1:50:44 AM
The Lazy One
@Big Jilm: I lol'd.
2/28/2009 2:00:22 AM
The Creationists can't comprehend the FACT that they have absolutely no clue what a FACT actually is.
2/28/2009 2:01:57 AM
If you peruse any of the FR evolution threads, you'll soon find that ToGodBeTheGlory is about most pig-ignorant motherfucker drawing breath.
2/28/2009 2:25:07 AM
What big hero? I don't have one.
2/28/2009 2:35:21 AM
ToGodBeTheGlory is a moron easily recognised by his constant attempts to create a new word "evo-atheists" which is a totally meaningless term.
He is also identified by his lack of understanding of evolution, the scientific method and of what actually happened in history.
2/28/2009 2:37:08 AM
The sad little prick writes provocative crap to attract attention to himself and to gain the admiration of his fellow fundies.
2/28/2009 2:38:06 AM
and that makes you....
2/28/2009 2:38:07 AM
Actually my biggest heros are Roger Federer, Tarkyn Lockyer (AFL player) and Barack Obama...oh and Dylan Moran is my God. Dont tell me who i idolise/worship.
2/28/2009 2:40:18 AM
Flipper 'n' Fries
Oh, it's wanky boy again.
2/28/2009 3:08:11 AM
1. Darwin wasn't a pathetic dabbler and came up with the most comprehensive biological theory to date.
2. He was not studying theology at all, let alone getting it wrong.
3. He had enough scientific training to come up with the most comprehensive biological theory to date.
4. Atheists do not worship him.
5. L. Ron Hubbard is not in Darwin's league, or vice versa. Not by a long shot.
5. You are wrong.
6. Shut up.
2/28/2009 3:32:57 AM
1 2 3 4