1 2
#16885
Blurb
It's PETA vs. Jesus in a knock-down drag-out RUMBLE this SUNDAY!
SUNDAY!
SUNDAY!
at the METRODOME!!!!
BE THERE!! [/Monster Truck Rally Voice]
2/22/2006 9:06:15 PM
#16899
King Spirula
Uh...So god desgined sharks to eat flesh and put them in a world where they could not? I'd almost buy this argument if all sharks had grinding molars instead of the cutting shears the carnivorous ones possess. (and my irony meter pegged once again)
2/22/2006 9:39:19 PM
#16901
Crosis
<<< One thing the scientists cannot explain is, why do sharks have big, flesh-eating teeth, if they were Designed for a world where animals did not eat each other???? >>>
Simple. They weren't designed for such a world. They wouldn't have such teeth if they were.
Is this guy aware that he's making our point for us? Hell, I'd probably have made the same comment about sharks if he hadn't. It can't possibly be healthy to be debunking your own arguments and think you're making sense.
2/22/2006 9:41:55 PM
#16903
David D.G.
I love it. This guy makes an observation clearly demonstrating the deficits of the creationism/design concept, yet somehow thinks it undercuts evolutionary theory instead. His mind is evidently both denser and duller than lead.
\"Self-Inflicted Refutation\" Award?
~David D.G.
2/22/2006 9:43:45 PM
#16911
Gadren
Wow...I mean, this fundie is too dumb to even come up with a religious reason why (like God being omniscient and predicting the Fall and the need for dangerous sharks)...
2/22/2006 9:58:14 PM
#16913
simon_eades
This has got to be the most contradictory, self-refuting, nonsensical piece of crap I have ever read. I tried to twist my brain into thinking in the way he/she does. It still hurts.
2/22/2006 10:00:55 PM
#16919
Blind Watchmaker
See, there's MUCH more to explain (not only shark teeth) if you assume that no-creature-eating thingie.
A strange Designer, indeed.
2/22/2006 10:47:42 PM
#16940
Julian
No no no sillies -- they're designed to eat people becasue we all know people aren't animals. (God I hope this wasn't his actual logic)
2/23/2006 12:23:07 AM
#16952
Peachy
I like it when they do our job for us, don't you?
2/23/2006 12:56:42 AM
#16958
Maronan
I suppose this might make sense to someone who starts with the unfounded assumption that God MUST exist, and merely wants to tell the choir that they shouldn't trust scientists since they can't answer the question. It makes sense in his own little world, in the same way that your dreams make sense before you wake up.
2/23/2006 1:13:40 AM
#16963
Alejandro
I can't believe it -it would be a perfectly coherent and valid post if only the word \"scientists\" was replaced with \"creationists\".
It's closer to being right that 99.9% of fundies will ever get, and yet it shows such a deep irrationality of thought that he sinks to the lowest 0.1% instead of the highest.
2/23/2006 1:37:39 AM
#16965
CheeZe
Worst case scenario:
.999 * 6,000,000,000 = 5,994,000,000
6,000,000,000 - 5,994,000,000 = 6,000,000
There are ~1,000,000,000 Christians. Thus:
994,000,000 Christians are confused.
Wait. Did that make sense?! :O
2/23/2006 1:44:12 AM
#16990
Bum
Do you still beat your wife?
2/23/2006 6:03:58 AM
#17002
Tenka
Is this fucking for real?
2/23/2006 12:44:06 PM
#17082
TDR
however, for the record, I am indeed stumped. But not for the reason he suspected...
2/23/2006 8:58:15 PM
#17165
Oolon Coluphid
I support the \"Self-Inflicted Refutation\" Award\" for this one. Can someone really be this stupid?
2/23/2006 11:36:38 PM
#17209
gregfl
another thing scientists cant explain.
Taking into account the survival of the fittesty, just how the hell did you ancestors make it this far?
2/24/2006 1:36:16 AM
#17246
never been there
\"stumped\" is easily confused with \"bloody speechless before the inanity\".
2/24/2006 3:34:35 AM
#17955
MrGoodBytes.
This guy has got to be the single dumbest human ever. Serious.
I mean, it's one thing to formulate a flawed/stupid/insane argument. I respect that. Nobody of us can claim infallibity.
To blast a smoldering hole in your own belief system with a single 29-word sentence, however, AND sincerely believing that you've just dealt the mortal blow to your arch enemy with said sentence is almost transcendentally stupid.
I hereby second this post for the \"Self-Inflicted Refutation Award\".
Furthermore, I have the feeling that the outrageous idiocy displayed here should be rewarded with another prize, namely the \"Singlehandedly Disproving Creationism, Supporting Macroevolution And Doing All Of That Unintentionally Award\"
2/27/2006 11:43:00 AM
#18066
wysage
Post of the Week (4) is too logical and too well written for a typical post, so I suspect it was written to fool this site. Most believers will say that it was a good thing that the \"fall\" happened so quickly so that sharks would not starve to death with teeth so poorly adapted to eating coral or kelp (actually thinking the humor in Mark Twain's \"Diary of Adam and Eve\" is true).
2/27/2006 10:35:09 PM
#18437
Seomah
\"No creature ate another creature\"
To my understanding, that is certainly challenged after reading that, plants are also creatures, so he must be saying that no animal ate at all before the fall. I guess the first to eat something was Eve.
3/1/2006 4:23:58 PM
#25874
Late_Cretaceous
What? Wait, I think I got it. No. It makes absolutely no sense.
4/8/2006 6:21:18 AM
#114049
Adrian
One thing the scientists cannot explain is, why do sharks have big, flesh-eating teeth, if they were Designed for a world where animals did not eat each other????
Can you explain why God designed them that way? Of course you can't, you can't prove something that dosn't make any sense.
But since science says that since the dawn of time animals have always had to eat something, even other animals to survive, then a shark evolving serrated pointed teeth that would allow it to be top predator would make perfect sense.
12/4/2006 5:04:27 PM
#256667
Count Spatula
Occam's Razor disagrees...
7/2/2007 3:34:41 PM
#256679
JM
Nice way to plant your foot firmly in your mouth there.
7/2/2007 5:07:29 PM
1 2