Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 40543

First Raven might not be our raven. Dove likewise. These are words being used for some kind of animals but who do they really mean.
Kinds would of been very few. For example I suspect bears and dogs are the same kind and more then this. Perhaps elephants and tapirs are the same kind. Certainly marsupials are the same kind as their counterpoints in placentals.
Perhaps triceritops dinos are just rhinos.
the classification of the last few hundred years has been incompetent.
First we nmeed to settle the actual divisions of the living creatures and fossil ones before figuring out what was on the ark.

Robert Byers, CARM 36 Comments [6/7/2008 5:28:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: EnemyPartyII
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
#531677
BoxerShorts

The lengths these people go to deny the simple and obvious truth that evolution happens.

6/7/2008 5:41:37 AM
#531685
Fishcakes

*brain asplosion*

Lucien was the first raven. [/geekpoints for anybody who gets the reference]

6/7/2008 5:52:03 AM
#531704
sofia the antichrist

Dogs and bears share a common evolutionary ancestor.
Tapirs and elephants are on the same branch of the evolutionary tree.
Triceratops is clearly an ancestor to rhinos.

Evolution wins again.

6/7/2008 6:15:41 AM
#531720
anonymous_troy

I'm pretty sure the raven symbolizes Barack Obama, hang on a minute...

*manipulates large multi-touch screen featuring bizarre conspiracy theory phrases*

*Taps 'raven' and 'Barack Obama'*

*A path lights up between them*

There you go!

6/7/2008 6:47:03 AM
#531724
JonnyTruant

@ Fishcakes: Was that in Sandman?


Hrm... making sense into nonsense. It should be a slogan for apologists.

6/7/2008 7:00:24 AM
#531729
Jud

The boundries between species are clear: not appearences, but the ability to share a gene pool.

Bears and dogs can't share grandchildren. Not the same species.

Fail.

6/7/2008 7:06:08 AM
#531745
Cymro

Therefore, if there was less variety of life then, and more variety of life now... :D

6/7/2008 7:56:21 AM
#531746
Eden

Yes, of course, after evolution, modern biological systematics has to go, as it conflicts with literal interpretations of the bible.

Next thing would probably be to demand that all insects get amputated one pair of their legs :D

6/7/2008 7:57:45 AM
#531763
Dr. Gus

Do you actually believe there was a ship built with sticks by some old goat herder and his family that could accommodate a pair of EVERY living species? Do you have any idea of the size that thing would need to have? What about all the food those animals would need to survive for until that magical mythical rain stopped? According to some calculations by my old genetics professor back at the uni (sorry, he loved to ridicule bible fairy tales)the ship would have needed, if I remember correctly, to be like 4 times the size of the titanic PLUS another one 10 times larger for all the food and supplies.
So, are you suggesting an old man and his family built the biggest ships human history has known for that? Get real!

Also are you suggesting that that Noah fellow actually loaded pairs of DINOSAURS and early marupials on the ship? even if they predated him for several thousand years and some for MILLIONS of years?? Come on, stop trying to rationalize a fairy tale, it can't be done!

6/7/2008 8:45:41 AM
#531768
Comicartist

One would think that a totally correct holy book written by Mr. Diety himself would atleast get the names right.

6/7/2008 8:56:30 AM
#531786
FMG

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! AND WE KNOW WHAT THE DIVISIONS ARE.

Hm... Although this is in my favour... We are doing this Saga Style!

On the early morning of the 7th of june, in the 2008th year of our lord, the Full Metal Geneticist worked until the early hours of the morn. His windows lay open such that a breeze may enter his room. Little did he know the peril lurking outside his window. His tomes provided ample distraction while Five Tigers crept in via his window. Seeing them he rose to his weapons, but it was to naught, no sword or gun was in grasp. Only mere newspaper. But the Full Metal Geneticist was mighty. Distracted by the light. The Tigers lay unaware of the peril that awaited them and a flurry of blows initiated mortal combat. Only one would stand at the end of it. By the end of the night five tigers lay slain about the room. However the victory dance of the FMG was cut short. While he did do battle another foe had sneaked in. But this was no ordinary foe... This was a Tyrannosaurus Rex! But it fell just as easily as the tigers... Closing his window... The FMG retired to his bed for a good night sleep.

(This is what happens when you stay idiotic things like Ravens are not our ravens and Doves are not our doves. Because killing five moths and a daddy long leg with a rolled up newspaper is less impressive than singlehandedly dropping the czech tiger population by five tigers and slaying a freaking dinosaur with a copy of the Guardian)

6/7/2008 9:24:39 AM
#531817
Princess Rot

What?

6/7/2008 10:30:41 AM
#531849
aaa

Sometimes, you amaze me.

6/7/2008 10:58:54 AM
#531852
Beeblebrox

I swear I have no clue what the Hell this goober is talking about.

Fishcakes: Is that a Poe reference?

6/7/2008 11:01:22 AM
#531860
solomongrundy

First they discount evolution, then they claim a Triceratops can change into a rhino in a couple of thousand years?

6/7/2008 11:12:18 AM
#531940
LordJiro

Triceratops (a reptile) is of the same 'kind' as a rhinoceros (a mammal)? What the fuck?

6/7/2008 1:01:15 PM
#531956
Sanity

Fishcakes:

"The Sandman"
now show me the geekpoints ;)

6/7/2008 1:18:30 PM
#531958
pete

Dogs and Bears are not the same "kind". Fail#1 Elephants and tapirs are not the same "kind". Fail #2 Certainly no "kind" of marsupial is even close to any "kind" of placental. Fail #3 Triceratops was a "dino". That means it shared traits of reptiles and birds like other "dinos". It may, or may not, have been warm blooded and it laid eggs. There is no effing way a triceratops, or any other "dino", evolved into a "rhino" or any other effing mammal. Fail #7 (NOTE: Bob receives extra fails when he's so stupid he actually makes me angry he was ever taught the existence of language.) "The classification of the last few hundred years" is probably the most comprehensive continuous record of anything in the human experience. It really started with the ancient Greeks and has operated under the same system for "a few hundred years". And, unlike religious writings, "the classification" you so casually dismiss has been constantly updated, expanded, and corrected by thousands of wise people who have devoted their entire lives to making"the classification" as accurate as human research can make it. Fail#12 Actual divisions of the living creatures and the fossil ones is amazingly complete. While there are unknown creatures and odd-balls, most identified fossils are rigorously classified according to their relationship to other creatures. It's only idiot fundies who insist we disregard all these transitional forms. Yes, the same transitional forms fundies insist we haven't found. Fail #19 You can identify every atom of matter in the universe and it's position throughout time and what kind of creature it may have been part of and what that creature ate on Tuesdays and it would be pointless to discuss what "kinds" were on the Ark because there was no effing Ark! Fail #25 (NOTE 2: The judge reserves the right to make arbitrary judgments. So there!)

6/7/2008 1:22:21 PM
#531966
Helena

Enemy part II:

i know you actually post on the baords wiht these hippies: you should be sure to point out to them that the foundation of modern comaprative anatomy which determines our classifications of species (with considerable supplement from genetics now), including the classification of human beings as apes is based on the 18th century work Cuvier and Linneas, both creationists.

6/7/2008 1:30:52 PM
#531976
tmr

If you stopped spending so much time making shit up you might actually learn something.

6/7/2008 1:42:01 PM
#531977
Mister Spak

Giraffes and praying mantises are the same kind because they're both tall and skinny.

We already settled the actual division hundreds of years ago you dumb fuck. It's not going to change so you can find a way to cram 30 million animals in your mythical ark.

6/7/2008 1:42:26 PM
#532001
Horsefeathers

"These are words being used for some kind of animals but who do they really mean."

Personally, my first thought when trying to read anything by Byers is: "These are words being used for some kind of communication, but who do they really mean."

Look, stop butchering the language if you expect people to know what the holy hell you're talking about. Granted, this was more coherent than your typical twaddle but still...

"Kinds would of been very few."

Would have--not would of. When said in speech it's pronounced "would of" due to the contraction of "would" and "have", also known as "would've." Sheesh. Sorry, that just really bugs me.

"For example I suspect bears and dogs are the same kind and more then this."

If by "kind" you mean mammal then, yes. I suspect that creationist "kinds" don't go much beyond the typical three year old and their categorization of the world. In that case they're the same "kind" because they both have hair and walk on four legs.

I haven't a clue what the fuck you mean by "and more then[sic] this" so I'm not even going to try.

"Perhaps elephants and tapirs are the same kind."

Perhaps a bag of hair and your brains are the same kind.

"Certainly marsupials are the same kind as their counterpoints in placentals."

People have told you innumerable fucking times that marsupials are quite different than their "counterpoints" in placentals. You ignore everyone every single time. Open a fucking book. Hell, go to a zoo and talk to the marsupial keeper and they'll list all of the biological differences for you.

"Perhaps triceritops dinos are just rhinos."

Yeah, except for one being a dinosaur and extinct and the other not being either.

"the classification of the last few hundred years has been incompetent."

Yeah, you're "oooh... those look superficially alike so they're the same kind--except when they're not" is an ever so much better classification system.

"First we nmeed to settle the actual divisions of the living creatures and fossil ones before figuring out what was on the ark."

There was no ark you dolt.

6/7/2008 1:55:23 PM
#532029
CeilingCat

"I suspect bears and dogs are the same kind and more then this."

Sure. And cats are the same as bunny rabbits (they breed at similar rates so why not?), and chickens are the same as fish (they both procreate via the egg, well except for the fish that are livebearers), and horsies are the same as bicycles (you can ride them! Why not!) Yup, that's all settled, so there were approximately 3 animals on the Ark. BOY, that makes much more sense!

6/7/2008 2:08:28 PM
#532032
Allegory for Jesus

Define what "kind" is, aside from "well, they have a few arbitrary similarities, and I am going to group them together, despite their various, obvious differences that makes such categorization arbitrary". Then we can talk.

6/7/2008 2:13:36 PM
#532046
John

If dogs and bears are the same "kind", why not humans and chimps?

A rhino and a triceratops aren't remotely alike, other than both having a horns on their noses. Even the horns aren't similar. One is made of bone, while the other is actually a fingernail-like substance like a horse's hoof.

6/7/2008 2:35:05 PM
1 2