So, let's summarize the reasoning here.
Evolution must be fake, because (among many other crazy reasons supplied) it does not accurately explain the fossil record.
And, in the same vein, the fossil record must be fake, because evolution cannot be explained by anything at all.
Is anyone else picturing a petulant child holding on to the last bits of the notion that there is indeed a Santa Claus?
38 comments
Creationism must be fake, because (among many other crazy reasons supplied) it does not accurately explain the fossil record.
And, in the same vein, archaic pseudoscience must be fake, because creationism cannot be explained by anything at all.
There, fixed it.
"Evolution must be fake, because (among many other crazy reasons supplied) it does not accurately explain the fossil record."
I think this guy is criticizing fundies, not evolution. To me that paragraph means that the "crazy reasons supplied" are not crazy reasons in favor of evolution, but crazy reasons against it.
Am I the only one who thinks Southpaw018 is defending evolution here?
Seems like he's summarizing the creationists points, then comparing them to petulant children.
*shrug* I'll go read the whole thread.
*Edit* Ok, I suffered through the whole thread, and it still seems to me that Southpaw018 is on our side.
Is anyone else picturing a petulant child holding on to the last bits of the notion that there is indeed a Santa Claus?"
Why yes I am, only replace Santa Claus with God.
Hey, he ain't no fundie! The reasoning he is criticising is creationist 'reasoning'. Spot-on, too. Yahweh, please remove!
It's a summary of some fundie's reasoning. Apparently, someone was trying to disprove fossils with evolution, and evolution with fossils. Thus, Santa Claus.
Fark is definitely a political chop suey, and sometimes it's hard to tell who believes what. Consider Weaver95, an obnoxious old-school conservative/libertarian who's actually very nice in nonpolitical conversation, or elchip, who is a very talented political troll. Or the infamous Bevets, the notoriously repetitive and thickheaded fundy who doesn't know the difference between quotemining and scientific research.
Heh! This was a discussion of attacks on evolution. I was calling fundies children who desperately need something magical, like Santa, to justify their "criticisms" of evolution. It's a tad bit more ambiguous without the context, as noted above.
I'm on your side, FSTDT! Thanks to the folks who backed me up!
Southpaw018, are you like Southpaw023 now? Head into the forums in you like, not many fundies, but hey...
So, let's summarize the reasoning here.
Religion must be fake, because (among many other crazy reasons supplied) it does not accurately explain the fossil record.
And, in the same vein, the fossil record must be fake, because religion cannot be explained by anything at all.
Is anyone else picturing a petulant child holding on to the last bits of the notion that there is indeed a Santa Claus?
Fixed.
Evolution and the fossil record cannot mutually falsify the other...and Southpaw need a trip to a good natural history museum, with a tour of the millions of specimens in the basement.
Evolution is observably true - see Darwin.
Evolution is scientifically explained - go talk to a good geneticist.
And evolution is logically true - you can see that animals and people have differences between individuals, and if that difference confers a better chance of surviving/breeding, then obviously there will be MORE individuals with that particular difference than there were before.
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.