Question's about evolution: FAIL

[Whisper]

Ah huh. Yeah. Was pointing out the absurdity of believing the creation myth, and this was the guys response:

Here are a few questions:
1) How did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? For at some point in evolution/big bang belief, something would have to come from literally NOTHING, which we know is impossible.
2) Gender Reproduction: Do you actually believe that the first "male" something and first "female" something evolved at the same time? They would have to, if not they could not reproduce, and the evolutionary tree would have went a different way. So you actually believe the DNA codes lined up for a "male" and "female" at the same time? Wow-talk about FAITH.
3) Plants: Why would plants evolve with roots to pull nutrients out of the earth that creatures (like us) would need? Was there a Grand DNA conference?
4) Why did we even "evolve" eyes for?
5) Which came first, the infant or the adult? In other words, as cells were subdividing over the supposed eons of time, at some point we get to where we are today. So, the first creatures to reproduce offspring to evolve, was it an infant or an adult? If an infant, who took care of it?
These men are not as bright as you give them credit for-they may be book smart-but not that bright-there is a difference

I honestly don't know where to start, the whole thing is just DRIPPING with FAIL.

[psychodiva]

good for a laugh tho

[psychodiva]

I thought you had that 'top ten myths' book?

OMG! He is right! I so totally now believe that humans came from the dirt (well, dudes did...chicks came from dudes' rib), that jesus' mom was never fucked, that jesus was buried dead and then came back to life and floated up to heaven, that a family and 2 of EVERY creature and enough food to feed them all lived on a boat for forty days while every other living thing drowned in a flood, that people lived for hundreds and hundreds of years and had hundreds and hundreds of wives and children! Gosh, it is all so clear now! It makes so much more sense than all of that science crap I have believed for years.

[psychodiva]

Hmmm. Yet none of you answered his questions. Can't you even answer one in a reasonably succinct way that your questioner can understand?

I guess you are stuck, Whisper. All you can reply is "science didit".

[ghoulslime]

Lily wrote

Hmmm. Yet none of you answered his questions. Can't you even answer one in a reasonably succinct way that your questioner can understand?

I guess you are stuck, Whisper. All you can reply is "science didit".

Does idiocy need to be explained to an idiot?

Ok, I will indulge you:


1) How did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? For at some point in evolution/big bang belief, something would have to come from literally NOTHING, which we know is impossible.

The question displays a gross ignorance of known science. The Big Bang did not create matter. It was only one demonstrable example of the rearrangement of matter. Why is the possibility that matter always existed so easily dismissed?

The question presumes to know the impossibility of the unknowable.

The question predicates the counter argument against an omniscient being coming from nothing.

At some point, don't theists get tired of being so fucking stupid?

Do you need the rest of them explained to you, Lily, or do you think you can manage?

I liked question number 5 the best:

5) Which came first, the infant or the adult? In other words, as cells were subdividing over the supposed eons of time, at some point we get to where we are today. So, the first creatures to reproduce offspring to evolve, was it an infant or an adult? If an infant, who took care of it?
These men are not as bright as you give them credit for-they may be book smart-but not that bright-there is a difference

Could you help me out with this one?

OOOOOH! I have a better question...who created god? See how stupid that is? It goes both ways fuckwit christians.

Thanks for proving my point. The average atheist is as ignorant of the mechanics of evolution as the rest of the general population is. You take it on faith. Hence, a little less arrogance, especially from the hillbillies amongst us, is definitely warranted.

[Mog]

Lily wrote

Thanks for proving my point. The average atheist is as ignorant of the mechanics of evolution as the rest of the general population is. You take it on faith. Hence, a little less arrogance, especially from the hillbillies amongst us, is definitely warranted.

So basically, because we don't completely know all the details about what science teaches us, we should just let the science slide, pretend we have no evidence, and have more faith about religion, where we really have no evidence whatsoever. Is that it? It seems like its you, who are the one with all the arrogance, Lily. So when are you going to tell us that you are also a vaccine-denier as well?

Mog, a clock that has stopped is still right twice a day. Why can't you manage that? My point is that atheists who prattle about science need to be a little less arrogant in calling others ignorant (or dripping with FAIL), when, in fact, they do not themselves have a firm grasp of the facts they believe in. It is still faith when you take the word of some authority for the facts you do not know or understand fully. If the authority is really an authority, belief is justified. If not, then not.

[Mog]

Lily wrote

Mog, a clock that has stopped is still right twice a day. Why can't you manage that? My point is that atheists who prattle about science need to be a little less arrogant in calling others ignorant (or dripping with FAIL), when, in fact, they do not themselves have a firm grasp of the facts they believe in. It is still faith when you take the word of some authority for the facts you do not know or understand fully. If the authority is really an authority, belief is justified. If not, then not.

So I take it that you take it on faith that a computer or TV works the way its supposed to then?

For the very least, I can look up the information I need to discern the big questions of evolution. I can't do the same thing with theology. This is the difference between your belief and mine. In fact, you don't even try to discern answers of the big questions of theology, but rather attempt to dismiss them as sophomoric.

[Captain Relativity]

Lily, you pompous ass, I mean cow, I'd be willing to bet anything that we atheists on this site have a much greater/clearer understanding of the process of biological evolution by natural selection than theists such as yourself, not to mention the many millions of "hillbilly" YEC theists who take your Hokey Babble literally and verbatim.

Show of hands. How many atheists 'get it' when it comes to the natural process of evolution? And how many have at least a basic understanding of cosmology and astrophysics? I'll be shocked if most don't say yes, they do.

Now, how many theists? Anybody? Anybody at all?

[Irreligious]

You need to retire that line about stopped watches being right twice a day until you manage to accomplish the feat, Lily.

They're stupid questions. Even an admitted science dummy, like me, knows that.

The first is stupid because it presumes the questioner actually knows that something came from nothing. He doesn't.

The second question demonstrates the questioner's apparent lack of awareness of asexual reproduction, which still occurs in some species. The third assumes that plants contain nutrients specifically to accommodate human needs instead of humans evolving the ability to metabolize plants from which we can draw nutrition. Does the questioner wonder why some plants are not nutritious and are actually toxic to humans and other animals?

Question number four is also stupid. Why not ask why cancer cells evolved to kill us? Equally retarded is question five. There are plenty of creatures living today that give birth to their infant offspring or hatchlings and leave them to fend for themselves. Sea turtles are one example of such:

The mature nesting female hauls herself onto the beach and finds suitable sand on which to create a nest. Using her hind flippers, she digs a circular hole 40 to 50 centimetres (16 to 20 in) deep. After the hole is dug, the female then starts filling the nest with a clutch of soft-shelled eggs one by one until she has deposited around 50 to 200 eggs, depending on the species. Some species have been reported to lay 250 eggs, such as the hawksbill. After laying, she re-fills the nest with sand, re-sculpting and smoothing the surface until it is relatively undetectable visually. The whole process takes thirty to sixty minutes. She then returns to the ocean, leaving the eggs untended.[1]

Science does not require anyone's faith. If one is truly skeptical about its claims or what one might erroneously believe to be its claims, he or she can test them. The idiot who asked these dumb questions is obviously one incurious bastard. All he had to do was crack open a book, surf the Web even, or take a few biology classes at his local community college.

[Choobus]

Lily wrote

Mog, a clock that has stopped is still right twice a day.

A slow clock may never be right*, and religion has a hard time keeping up with the times (how long did it take the inflatable papacy to forgive Galileo?).



* probably there will be an occasional confluence with the actual time, but the clockmaker can hardly take credit for this