1
#64269
Jeremy
\"Evolutionists are still waiting to see the fossil evidence\"
He's right! I am! Man, this line to get into the museum is stretching on forever!
8/16/2006 6:23:28 AM
#64309
Prager
The fossil and other evidence is already there and being analysed. It is you who choose not to see.
8/16/2006 8:23:45 AM
#64317
Redhunter
So collecting data and studying artifacts is a religion now? How much crack have you smoked? It's called evidence moron. Think of it this way, ancient Egypt was studied, the rosetta stone cracked the translation, and now we know more than we did before. That does not make a religion.
Apostle Paul is talking about religion, \"evidence of things not yet seen\". A fossil is evidence of something seen, get it? Fossils fucking exist, dipshit! God does not so you have FAITH that he does. How the fuck is finding a dinosaur skeleton faith? Nobody knew about fossils until they were first found. Nobody was walking around with faith in the fact that giant lizard bones would be found someday, it didn't occur to them that dinosaurs were possible until they actually found them!
Fuck you people can be maddening.
8/16/2006 8:33:32 AM
#64369
Gargoyle
Another fundie that cannot follow his own (un)logical reasoning... sigh...
8/16/2006 9:57:27 AM
#64375
Brain_In_A_Jar
What you're effectively saying is that it's bad to have faith that conclusions can be drawn by analysing evidence. Tell me, have you ever visited a place called \"physical reality\"?
8/16/2006 10:08:25 AM
#64445
McCulloch
Karl beat me to it.
8/16/2006 2:01:37 PM
#64538
Hadanelith
I almost want what you smoking, but I respect my brain cells too much.
8/16/2006 4:17:34 PM
#64575
Napoleon the Clown
Because everyone knows about all those wars started by the Church of Evolution and the billions killed in its name.
8/16/2006 5:27:44 PM
#64634
UberLutheran
Have you been to the Field Museum in Chicago?
You can see plenty of fossils there.
The evidence IS there.
8/16/2006 8:26:30 PM
#287981
I ain't tellin' you.
Funny thing is, I searched for exactly this just a couple months earlier, for a persuasive essay for my English final exam. Call it nostalgia, I haven't been in a Creationism/Evolution mosh pit--I mean debate--for ages.
Seriously, I love watching people go at it for the dumbest reason on the planet. I'm sitting here with popcorn, chewing my nails when I run out, going "oh, he just said something stupid...and that guy's retort was just AS stupid."
Enough of my rambling. Point is, you know what how many apparently non-existant missing link (the technical term is actually "transitional lifeform") fossils were listed?
Over a hundred.
And when you think that fossilization is an extremely rare process (when you do a little background research, you'll find that most complete skeletons in museums are fakes based off the real bones and the real things are stashed away so they don't get damaged, just so we avoid that argument right there,) that's pretty good evidence.
9/15/2007 11:33:38 PM
#288026
DinDC
Yeah, I mean those Evolutionist suicide bombers are a real bitch.
9/16/2007 12:52:48 AM
#288027
DinDC
Yeah, I mean those Evolutionist suicide bombers are a real bitch.
9/16/2007 12:52:49 AM
#289979
Brian X
Okay, well, uh... they didn't just stumble on Tiktaalik, mmkay? Because frankly there just aren't that many people in that part of Canada to stumble on it. They knew that an animal like that was out there somewhere, and gave some thought to where it might be.
Let's see... a big chunk of North America is called the Canadian shield, and it's some of the oldest rocks in the Northern hemisphere (the really old stuff is in Africa and Australia). At one time it was all there was of North America. Now I don't know the whole story, but if I understand what they were trying to do, they went looking based on a few ideas: 1. The animal they were looking for had to be a shallow-water animal, partly because that's the right habitat for a fish with legs, partly because they'd never find fossils of a pelagic animal; 2. The logical place to look would be in an area that would have been seashore when the hypothetical transitional form had to exist.
A certain area of the Nunavut territory happened to be exactly where they wanted to look, so they went there and found... Tiktaalik. It was, indeed, a fish with legs. That bit of work comes pretty damn close to fitting the definition of scientists that creationists like to use. How do you like them apples? Or fishapods?
9/19/2007 12:58:13 AM
#1108627
Rumpleforeskin
I still don't know what an "evolutionist" is... Am I a "mathsist" because I believe in maths?
2/2/2010 10:07:47 AM
#1238865
samPatch
The good thing about this is that a mind is a evolutionary advantage, and the mindless will die out.
I draw my *faith* from "evolutionist" daughters of fundie parents.
12/28/2010 3:56:37 PM
#1238887
Philbert McAdamia
> It's such a intolerant religion that it refuses to be called a religion <
That's right. We prefer to call it a personal relationship with reality.
12/28/2010 5:15:50 PM
#1238928
what???
"I know it's diffucult for you to see the truth, but please try."
(chuckle) Ok (snicker)
"Evolutionism is the most dangerous form of religion on the planet today."
Wow, really? I had no idea a scientific concept could be a religion, you know, with lace of laws, moral codes, gods and demons, supernatural powers, and such. But ok, continue.
"It's such a intolerant religion that it refuses to be called a religion,"
You know, I've heard many xtian preachers say that xtianity isn't a religion, and it's pretty intolerant, so I think you have the two confused. Projection much? Please, continue.
"even though its major belief, that fossils will provide the answer, is faith-based."
Wow, maybe I'm confused on the definition of faith. I thought faith was belief in something that cannot be experienced or explained. Like how kids believe in Santa Clause. But we have fossils, so there's not really any faith required.
"The Christian Apostle Paul wrote that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen.""
As opposed to? The Hindu Apostle Paul? I'm sorry, that was sarcastic of me, I apologize. But, that verse proves my last statement, though. Go on.
"Evolutionists are still waiting to see the fossil evidence,"
Um, no, it's there. Just because you want to deny it's existence doesn't make it true. Or, is anti-evolution a new religion?
"but they have FAITH it is there waiting to be dug up."
Ok, this is just boring now. I thought you were going to come with hard evidence. I didn't realize you were just going to spout insane beliefs about how your non-existent god did it, while denying the evidence that is right there for all to see. I'm sorry, I had you confused with someone with a brain.
12/28/2010 10:17:20 PM
#1450020
zomgwtfbbq
Even if we accept the premise that evolution is a religion, this iron has still not explained how it is dangerous...
9/21/2012 11:07:19 PM
#1450033
Justanotheratheist
Why is "evolutionism" dangerous? Are you afraid that your pet cat will evolve into a hungry tiger overnight? Fear not, it won't.
By the way, we don't have faith that there is a heap of fossil evidence yet to be uncovered. We know it for sure. We already have tons of fossil evidence as it is, whereas you have nothing but faith that a bunch of stupid and downright impossible ancient fairy tales are actually true.
9/22/2012 1:43:21 AM
#1450067
Dr.Shrinker
You are rather patronizing for some one who obviously has no idea what he is talking about
9/22/2012 6:44:37 AM
#1450087
Philbert McAdamia
The Christian Apostle Paul wrote that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen."
The Evolutionist Apostle Mark Twain wrote that "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
9/22/2012 8:00:06 AM
1