Evangelical Minister: Jesus Hearts Darwin

[Professor Chaos]

Sorry, I was just trying to skip the step where I said that science conflicts with Christianity in many ways, for example people can't walk on water, corpses don't rise from the grave, people can't curse fig trees, etc., and you tell me that Jesus' miracles don't count, because he's supernatural.

Or are you going to tell me they're not testable? I can't remember how this one goes.

Professor Chaos wrote

Sorry, I was just trying to skip the step where I said that science conflicts with Christianity in many ways, for example people can't walk on water, corpses don't rise from the grave, people can't curse fig trees, etc., and you tell me that Jesus' miracles don't count, because he's supernatural.

Or are you going to tell me they're not testable? I can't remember how this one goes.

*skips to end of argument*

You're a freakin' idiot!

Edit: and you're going to hell
Edit: and you're a poopy head

[Professor Chaos]

*skips past return insults to the make nice part*

I'm gonna argue this way from now on. A great time saver. We could also argue through smilies only.

From start to finish...

1)

2)

3)

4)

...some optional endings

4) , , or

[Gnosital]

Lurkie, why do you even bother?

Your stupidity is blatantly offensive.

[Gnosital]

ubs wrote

From Wired News

Sounds good right? But the thing is he hasn't really grasped the concept.

Nope.

When someone misunderstands science, but the end result is that the teaching of science is embraced is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Good question!

The end result of greater cultural acceptance of evolution and all things scientific is doubtless a good thing. Even if it occurs because of an assclown trying to make a name for himself by being all brilliant and stuff and writing a book that taps into the current popular "issues".

He's obviously an opportunistic blowhard, but hey, it's better than all the opportunistic blowhards who try to grab their 15 minutes of fame by saying stupider things.

Only a small percentage of the population will ever really get science anyway. It's too difficult for average people to grasp. But as long as there isn't rampant hostility to scientific methods or the body of knowledge produced by those methods, the number of those who get it may be maximized.

Gnosital wrote

Good question!

The end result of greater cultural acceptance of evolution and all things scientific is doubtless a good thing. Even if it occurs because of an assclown trying to make a name for himself by being all brilliant and stuff and writing a book that taps into the current popular "issues".

He's obviously an opportunistic blowhard, but hey, it's better than all the opportunistic blowhards who try to grab their 15 minutes of fame by saying stupider things.

Only a small percentage of the population will ever really get science anyway. It's too difficult for average people to grasp. But as long as there isn't rampant hostility to scientific methods or the body of knowledge produced by those methods, the number of those who get it may be maximized.

Which means, of course, that the dummies must bow down before us and believe! Why should we let all the churches get the gold, anyway?!?

[Gnosital]

Well, I'm not into that dominatrix stuff like Lillytards is, but if the assclowns knew what was good for them, they'd at least give the smart peoples some props.

[Sternwallow]

Lurker wrote

There is nothing about science qua science that conflicts with Christianity. It may disagree with the interpretations that some scientists hold, but that's different. If you disagree then give an example.

Pi=3, bats are birds, five brothers = six (twice), daylight created before the sun and the earth before the sun, sun halting for about a day...

I know, you only asked for one. Sorry. Sometimes I get carried away...and sedated.

Sternwallow wrote

Pi=3, bats are birds, five brothers = six (twice), daylight created before the sun and the earth before the sun, sun halting for about a day...

Sorry but these are interpretations and I wasn't talking about that.

Sometimes I get carried away...and sedated.

I know. Have another drink.

[Sternwallow]

Lurker wrote

Maybe so. It's a semantic issue, but I think most people equate "adapting to fit the environment" with "improving".

Well they're wrong, then, aren't they. [virtual cookie for the ref]

Biological evolution sometimes gets simpler when a feature, added in response to an environmental pressure, is no longer needed (it no longer provides reproductive advantage, but still requires resources for building and maintenance). Human appendix is an example. It is evolving out.

It is not "improving" if an animal population first evolves to cope with cooling climate and then evolves again for a warming climate. It just follows the survival path.

[Sternwallow]

Lurker wrote

Understand, I don't. Explain, you will.

Understanding of simple grammar, you need.

[Gnosital]

Sternwallow wrote

Sometimes I get carried away...and sedated.

Lurker wrote

I know. Have another drink.

He meant he gets sedated by your incredibly pedantic stupidity, dumbass. Your posts are as effective as Sominex.


OR Emetrol.


Or Milk of Magnesia.

Sternwallow wrote

Well they're wrong, then, aren't they. [virtual cookie for the ref]

Biological evolution sometimes gets simpler when a feature, added in response to an environmental pressure, is no longer needed (it no longer provides reproductive advantage, but still requires resources for building and maintenance). Human appendix is an example. It is evolving out.

It is not "improving" if an animal population first evolves to cope with cooling climate and then evolves again for a warming climate. It just follows the survival path.

1)

2)

3)

4)