As advances in science continue to disprove Darwinism, people are returning to the pre-Darwinian world view of Biblical Creationism and Catastrophism in droves!
I'm having fun here at the Dawkins Forum helping people understand this.
53 comments
And you're not succeeding, because they know you're lying. People who are "returning" to the Biblical Creationism because they're uneducated rednecks, not because The theory of evolution has been disproved(it hasn't). Look at stats, the typical creationism believer is a man, 65 years or more, republican and with no university background.
How the fuck do you think that is "helping people understand"? You mean helping them understand that you shun reality and claim victory no matter what the outcome of your "argument"?
I understand you are ignorant and proud. I understand that you think your belief in your book makes you think you are smarter then the rest of the world who are non-believers. I understand that you enjoy wasting peoples' time on the internet to bug them with your preaching.
You MISunderstand a lot.
Yes... Indeed, I think you're providing plenty of amusement for the readers of the Dawkins Forum.
Please note: Richard Dawkins is very, very well-informed, and I expect that many of his followers are too. Best stay away, dear afdave.
Read the whole thread. He's got an article from an Israeli newspaper where they say that scientists doubt that Lucy is our ancestor, because her jaws are closer to those of a gorilla, not of a chimpanzee. Well, this cretin thinks it's a proof that evolution is false.
As advances in science continue to disprove Darwinism...
people are returning to the pre-Darwinian world view of Biblical Creationism and Catastrophism in droves!
From the original thread it looks like afdave (I think the 'af' stands for ass-fact) has quoted a paper that argues that 'Lucy' is closer to robust Australopithecene than the gracile one, hence probably not a direct ancester of Homo .
Big, furry, wet, robust deal. As Lucy's species can't be determined through DNA evidence, we are relying entirely on morphological evidence, which is very much open to interpretation. As Ken Miller put it in his post-Dover talk on Intelligent Design, "Paleontologists will argue about just about anything!"
Ass-fact Dave is pulling the age-old trick of claiming that because science 'changes its mind', nothing it says has value.
Evolution is equally applicable whether Lucy is robust or gracile, the theory is not falsified. Only the human cladogram changes.
I looked it up, Miller was commenting on a Brown University Paleontology meeting where a heated argument broke out over whether a newly discovered fossil was a 'mammal-like reptile' or a 'reptile-like mammal'.
Oh noes!!1! The whole of evolution will crash to the ground because two groups of people disagree over some hair-splitting distinction! [/sarcasm]
Just ss Frazier Crane asked Cliff on Cheers , "afdave, what color is the sky in your world?"
Some of you people really do live in an entirely different universe, don't you?
I read that thread, just out of morbid curiosity. I haven't laughed that hard in days.
That fundie's become so infamous on that board, the members use his more outrageous quotes in their sigs. It's like a sarcastic fan club! Made my morning, it did.
"I'm having fun here at the Dawkins Forum helping people understand this"
"... I'm having fun here at the Dawkins Forum helping people understand this."
Why does this remind me of Zippy, the pinhead in the comics, who always ask, "Are we having fun, yet?"
Oh well, I suspect Ass Fact Dave also had fun whenever he had to wear a dunce hat in school. He thought he had just been elected prom king.
As advances in science continue to disprove Darwinism, people are returning to the pre-Darwinian world view of Biblical Creationism and Catastrophism in droves!
This isn't "The Hunting of the Snark" ... what you say three times (or twenty) doesn't become true.
Biblical creationism has already been disproved, not just by evolution, but by a variety of other sciences, as well. Disproving "Darwinism" wouldn't help, because you'd also need to disprove physics, geology and astronomy. "Intelligent Design" avoids these conflicts, mainly by avoiding making any verifiable assertions, but ID doesn't support the Bible, either.
"As advances in science continue to disprove Darwinism, ..."
They do?
"...people are returning to the pre-Darwinian world view of Biblical Creationism and Catastrophism in droves!"
They are?
Doesn't your holy book have something to say on the topic of whether you should bear false witness?
"This one is but flesh and faith, and is the more deluded."
That was my favorite part of the game.
drove n. A flock or herd being driven in a body.
Unfortunately, there is an element of truth to the statement.
We're waiting for his fame to become *global* ... it's only a matter of time before Comedy Central discovers him and sticks him on camera in front of Jon Stewart ... some of us here at RDF have already had to invest in reinforcements for our peritoneal cavities because of the risk of laughing so hard we give ourselves hernias. If you want some truly *glorious* entertainment, track down his Pyramidology witterings and his announcement that the Asteroid Belt was formed by rocks being blasted off the surface of the Earth during the Flood. A satirist couldn't make this guy up - the script would be panned for being too far removed from reality - but here he is at RDf, for your delight and entertainment. Form an orderly queue everyone!
If you want some truly *glorious* entertainment, track down his Pyramidology witterings and his announcement that the Asteroid Belt was formed by rocks being blasted off the surface of the Earth during the Flood.
Uh...that's a lot of rocks...
Even if the statement "people are returning to the pre-Darwinian world view of Biblibal Creationism and Catastrophism in droves!" were true, since when does science need to be popular to be true? That's like saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, just because too many people believed it does not make it a fact.
Catastrophism: The belief that earth was formed by sudden catastrophic events, as opposed to gradualism where geological features are formed by slow gradual processes.
Fundies think the grand canyon was formed in a week by the last retreating flood waters, while normal people know it was formed over millions of years by an average sized river.
Wow, check out afdave's blog, I think he is the most elaborate troll in the history of the internet. I think so because what he believes is complete nonsense but he seems quite intelligent. Also read one of his many threads on the Richard Dawkins Forum, often times he just tries to piss people off on purpose. My vote for "Troll of the Century" award.
Oh he's just added another choice morsel to the dish. In a post addressed directly to me, he wrote the following:
Cali ... I'd love to see you start a thread somewhere to try to explain the geological record WITHOUT recourse to a Global Flood. I really would. I don't think I've ever seen it done.
To which several other posters who saw this before I did said "try reading a geology textbook".
His response to this was as follows:
Whoa ... just a minute ... I said EXPLAIN. Not assert just so stories at every turn.
So this guy thinks that *every accredited geology textbook in existence* is a piece of fiction, because none of those textbooks mention the Biblical Flood.
He's now embarking on more trainwrecks at iidb.org. Half the regulars at RDF have just signed up at IIDB just so that they can watch him being fed into the shredder by the IIDB mods when he follows his usual modus operandi . When he's given the Monty Python Giant Foot Descending From On High treatment, you'll be able to hear the clinking of champagne glasses on three continents to my knowledge, and probably more. I've yet to discover if his reputation has made it to Antarctica, but if it has, I'll bet the assorted research scientists there are having a fine time laughing at his output.
I didn't join the Barenaked Ladies message board because I'm a fan of Creed.
If you don't believe in Richard Dawkins, don't join his message board.
well.... catastrophism is compatable with "Darwinian" evolution as being a valid counterpoint to uniformitarianism, at least as far as it can be scientifically demonstrated (ie. volcanoes, meteors, etc). Best example is the theorized catastrophic event /or events that led to the rapid extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of the mammalian species which currently dominate the planet. (BTW, I didn't say jack about Noah's flood, which has not been scientifically demonstrated, and thus far all attempts to link it to the extinction of the dinosaurs currently amount to bald-faced assertions in defense of an hypothesis which, let's face it, is not scientific).
image
Three people ain't a drove, honey, and Science has been trying to disprove Evolution (calling it Darwinism just shows how uneducated and/or brainwashed you are) for 150 years, and no-one has yet succeeded.
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.
