Quote# 8836

[Responding to a post explaining that there are transition forms between asexual and sexual reproduction, and in fact many lifeforms reproduce reproduce sexually and asexually.]

even though animals and organisms exist that cannot produce sexually doesnt mean that there are organisms who cant. again another supporter of evolution who doesnt understand the theory.

My soul is still longing after all these years, Myspace 18 Comments [1/3/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Maybe its just because it is targeted towards the young, but every time a FSTDT post shows up from myspace its the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

1/3/2006 2:50:33 AM


I've just been Intellectually and Grammaritically Sodomized.


-My Two(sore) bits.

1/3/2006 3:16:26 AM


I've read that five times and I still don't understand. I think I need to lie down now.

1/3/2006 3:18:59 AM



You obviously don't understand the theory!!!!!!!!

1/3/2006 3:56:20 AM


>>I've read that five times and I still don't understand. I think I need to lie down now.<<

It isn't supposed to make sense. He just counters every argument by saying that \"you obviously don't understand the theory\", but note, he never explains the theory.

He must have made up his own.

1/3/2006 4:15:32 AM


...So, the argument here is, and I paraphrase:

\"Even though there are things that can't produce sexually, that doesn't mean there are that things that can't produce sexually?\"

My head hurts.

1/3/2006 6:11:34 AM


... Wow.

1/3/2006 7:50:30 AM


The harder I try to make sense of it, the less I understand what this fundie is trying to say.

1/3/2006 11:05:54 AM


I'd pay good money to read this guy's interpretation of the theory of evolution. Come on, Msislaaty, don't be shy!

1/3/2006 1:40:19 PM

Darth Wang

Someone should call him out on his bullshit

1/3/2006 2:57:42 PM


Wait ... the existence of organisms that don't reproduce sexually doesn't mean that organisms that don't reproduce sexually exist?

I know it's early, but we'll never find a better example for a Non-Contradiction Award than this. (Then again, I should know by now not to underestimate the stupidity of the submissions here.) He basically says straight out \"A does not imply (not not A)\".

1/3/2006 4:02:07 PM

The Last Conformist

Non-Contradiction Award seconded.

This is on a level with McNameless famous dictum \"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong.\"

1/3/2006 7:20:01 PM


yep. I'm definitely going to have to propose marriage or something. This guy is just unreal. I can't believe it.

1/9/2006 8:50:30 PM


<<but note, he never explains the theory.

He must have made up his own.>>
I make up my own theories on stuff, but I can explain it better than \"YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE THEORY IF YOU DONT' AGREE WITH ME!!!\" >_>;; Yeah... scaaaary.

1/10/2006 12:12:04 AM


Again another speaker of english who doesn't understand the language.

6/23/2008 4:48:51 AM

Tiny Jeebus

Freinds, don't let friends type drunk.

2/10/2009 4:49:29 PM

And you didn´t understand ANYTHING. That´s sure.

8/9/2009 8:13:43 AM

I cried when I read this.

8/9/2009 8:40:57 AM

1 | top: comments page