The Theory of Evolution in Less Than Two Minutes

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 25, 2011 8:35 PM GMT


    Hopefully some of you who haven't seen this award-losing video, starring Poopers, Frankencell, and Boobzilla, will find it amusing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 5:19 PM GMT
    LOL, those plants were funny
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 5:33 PM GMT
    Gosh, it sure is amusing. And it even had boob jokes. I nominate this short to be shown on Hee Haw.

    It was really easy for me to understand. The narrator spoke in simple terms that even I, with my seventh-grade education, could grasp.

    I want my pastor to show this during his next sermon. He's been struggling with a way to make evolutionists seem stupid.

    My one regret: Kirk Cameron wasn't featured in this video. He made banana-eating evolutionists eat crow too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 5:50 PM GMT
    self. defeating. pitiable. nonsense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 6:05 PM GMT
    viitz saidBeing uneducated and ignorant isn't funny.


    It can be
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 6:14 PM GMT
    So we discover that jockfever, as well as being a racist right-wing fascist gun-nut nut-job [and an anti-semite?], has a really really really shit sense of humor.

    Now there's a surprise. What's next in this sequence of shock revelations? He's a submissive bottom who likes being whipped and jacks off to Tom of Finland?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 6:39 PM GMT
    I thought it was funny. Then again, I thought it was satire. If it's not satire, then oh my goodness does someone need to take a biology class! Then again, most biology teachers at the high school level are too afraid to teach evolution for fear of backlash. Just goes to show how much we value real education in this country. Sigh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 6:44 PM GMT
    viitz saidvideo about dinosaur and bird genetics

    Maybe this will help the misguided understand a little something through application.


    I always keep telling people who imagine dinosaurs as big lizards how wrong this old view is... enough anatomical evidence is around to show that dinosaurs were really large birds that had not yet developed feathers and still had claws... they were warm-blooded, many brooded in large flocks and were very social... a large dinosaur flock would have looked very much like the bird flocks we see flying and brooding together today...

    Movies will often portray them (these dinosaurs) with large mammalian grunts and roars and being bland green in colour... this is a typical mistake to be making, as we ascribe to them the characteristics of most large mammals... if you look at he plethora of non-mammalian creatures.... frogs, fish, birds, lizards, we see they come in spectacular colours and make an infinite array of sounds, songs, warbles, whistles, croaks, chirps, hisses, hoots, yells etc.... the old dinosaur world can be expected to have been an exceeding colourful world with a veritable concert of non-mammalian sounds, it would have been a wondrous thing to the senses icon_smile.gificon_smile.gificon_smile.gif

    Now wether or not the DNA of birds can be turned back to a more primitive, dinosaur-like state, through artificial means is an interesting thought, but as an advocate of humane treatment of animals, I will have to admit I would consider it unethical to subject living things to such experimentation consciously.. it would no doubt entail a lot of failed experiments leading to suffering animals being born from these eggs.. much as though I would LOVE a pet dinosaur and even as a child, they were my favourite animals to read about

    Finally, whether this video will convince a non-believer in the theories of evolution is unlikely.... the theory is far too complex to be rationally grasped in its entirety, and requires a bit of a leap of faith to go for.... I think there's many people that simply will not be comfortable stepping outside their boundaries of belief... you wont believe how many people will refuse to believe that we came from Africa... and that all other living beings and we have common ancestors, because it encroaches too much upon their personal sense of feeling privileged among species... stranger yet, as they will often accept that all humans came from Adam and Eve, and therefore MUST have evolved into different races... but to take it further would take away their place at the centre of God's creation.... illogical, but true

    That said, I love TED talks, and I enjoyed this video immensely, thanks for posting icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 6:43 PM GMT
    TigerTim racist anti-semitic gun-nut (blah blah blah)

    jockfever: humor: as rare as sanity in the fever swamps of the Left.

    The odds that you'll one day realize the worthlessness of personal attacks are probably about the same as the odds that a living cell developed spontaneously.

    anti-semitic? you're even more off the reservation than usual.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 11:37 PM GMT
    yourname2000: The best part about these kinds of Christians is that they reveal themselves to be the stupidest, most inbreed heathen of the bunch. Get it through your thick dinosaur-like skull "jock"fever: evolution IS God's way. Until then, it's the simplest IQ test on the planet: "are you a Christian"...."yes"...."thank you, you're a moron....next!"

    jockfever: Silly groundless statements are important to the mental disorder known as Liberalism, especially those deeply invested in the unbelievable theory of evolution.

    Hope springs eternal, however, so here is an explanation of the video from a web site which relies on facts, evidence and logic, rather than demented personal smears.


    http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i9f.htm

    Humor 101

    If you are familiar with our web site, you know that we enjoy humor with a serious purpose...

    People who don’t know much about evolution won’t get the jokes in our video. So, we will explain them to you in this essay. Since explaining a joke sucks the humor out of it, we really hope you watch our video before reading the following paragraphs.

    For Intellectuals


    The title slide shows a book cover that looks remarkably like Evolution for Dummies. It uses a similar color scheme, layout, and fonts. The irony is that this book is for intellectuals rather than dummies.

    There are two kinds of evolutionists: innocently ignorant evolutionists and intimidated intellectual evolutionists.

    Innocently ignorant evolutionists aren’t dummies—they have just fallen victim to the one-sided propaganda preached in public schools. They aren’t stupid—they just don’t know the truth because it has been censored. They accept, without question, “evolution is a fact,” just because someone told them so. Most of them don’t know anything about evolution. Therefore, most of them will be confused by our video. Hopefully, it will get them to ponder things they have been told, and realize how utterly unscientific the theory of evolution really is.

    There are only a few intimidated intellectual evolutionists. There are so few of them that you know who they are. We are talking about people like Eugenie C. Scott, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and the editors of Discover Magazine. If you read their work, it becomes immediately apparent that they believe in evolution because they don’t believe what Dawkins calls, “the God delusion.”

    They reason that evolution must be true because there isn’t any supernatural creator. They are intimidated because they fear that if evolution isn’t true, a mean, vengeful God will torture them eternally for their unbelief and disobedience. Because of their distorted view of religion, they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the truth that is staring them right in the face. They call upon all of their intellectual powers to deny the obvious flaws and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. Witness all the excuses we pointed out last month in Jerry Coyne’s book.

    We titled our video Evolution for Intellectuals because it presents the theory of evolution from the intimidated intellectual point of view. It makes scientifically absurd statements as if they were undeniable facts.

    Reactions to our video will vary. Innocently ignorant evolutionists will be confused because they won’t get too many of the jokes. Hopefully, it will get them to thinking. Intimidated intellectual evolutionists will be greatly angered by our video because they will get the jokes, and will realize that they expose the absurdity of their claims. But since their belief in evolution is based on fear rather than reason, our video won’t have much affect on them. Creationists will get all the jokes, will laugh, and love the video.

    Frankencell

    One of the stars of our video is Frankencell, the first living thing which came to life through an unguided, natural process which has not yet been discovered. In our video, Frankencell comes to life in the methane and ammonia atmosphere of a dirty diaper. Science is based on observation, but new life forms have never been observed to arise spontaneously in dirty diapers. (Doubtless, Coyne’s excuse is that people try to avoid examining dirty diapers as much as possible. )

    Let’s separate the truth from the exaggerated humor. Fifty years ago, when Stanley Miller produced a few organic molecules in a methane and ammonia atmosphere, evolutionists were really convinced that’s how life began. Today, that theory is largely rejected. They know it didn’t happen that way, but since they have no alternative, Miller’s experiment is still in the biology textbooks.

    Since evolutionists don’t even have a remotely plausible explanation for the origin of life, they try to exclude the origin of life from the theory of evolution. They say that abiogenesis is not part of evolution when, it fact, it is the very foundation of evolution.

    Whether they like to admit it or not, intimidated, intellectual evolutionists believe that some natural process caused lots of different organic compounds to arise from simple molecules. Those organic compounds assembled themselves into a cell with a membrane that allows nutrients in and waste products out. Then, somehow, that cell made the transition from inanimate to animate. That is, just like Frankenstein’s monster, it came to life.

    But let’s not stop there. Once it came to life, it had to start acquiring and using energy to grow, and eventually reproduce. If not, it would have died shortly after coming to life, and there would be nothing to evolve.

    Reproduction

    Reproduction is a real problem for evolutionists, on several levels. The first living thing had to reproduce before it died. What compels a single cell to divide itself in two?

    The reproduction process had to be perfect enough to create more identical offspring, but it had to be imperfect enough to create different offspring. When an imperfect (perhaps incomplete) reproduction produced the first multi-cellular organism, it not only had to be viable, but the different cells had to perform different functions in harmony with each other. How and why did that happen? Evolutionists don’t know, but they believe it must have happened because there are so many different kinds of multi-cellular organisms.

    Vertebrates

    Multi-cellular animals fall into two categories: vertebrates and invertebrates. That is, animals either have a backbone or they don’t. Evolutionists believe that all vertebrates have a common ancestor, which must have been some kind of fish.

    Evolving a backbone isn’t just a matter of evolving a bone down the back. The backbone is what protects the spinal cord, which is an integral part of the central nervous system. So, when evolutionists say that something evolved a backbone, they are really saying that something evolved a functioning central nervous system with a brain connected to at least one kind of sensor (sight, hearing, taste, touch, or smell). That’s one small step for an evolutionist, but one giant leap for a fish.

    Fish are sexual creatures, which is another reproduction issue that confounds evolutionists. Sexual reproduction is certainly good. It provides a method of eliminating genetic errors from the population. It also allows for variation. There’s no argument about that. The tough question is, “How did sexual reproduction originate?” The evolutionists’ naïve answer is that, since it is good, it must have evolved. They would like you to accept that without thinking further about it. Let’s think further...(use link for remainder of article)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 11:39 PM GMT
    ...You didn't pass Biology class, did you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2011 11:55 PM GMT
    yourname2000 saidThe best part about these kinds of christians is that they reveal themselves to be the stupidest, most inbreed heathen of the bunch. Get it through your thick dinosaur-like skull "jock"fever: evolution IS god's way.

    Until then, it's the simplest IQ test on the planet: "are you a christian"...."yes"...."thank you, you're a moron....next!"


    Being a Christian makes that person a moron?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 12:00 AM GMT
    Ummm....failicon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 12:01 AM GMT
    I prefer this short explanation...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 12:06 AM GMT
    Trollileo saidI don't know WTF is wrong with all of you. I thought it was funny. Stop taking every piece of shit you smell so seriously.


    I only thought it was funny because I thought it was satire. But then there are people who actually do believe in crap like I.D. and disregard all the evidence pointing to evolution (See: JF). It's embarrassing, though I guess it can't be helped if he's too dense to even remotely understand a concept you can observe in a petri dish.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Aug 02, 2011 12:16 AM GMT
    I like Ms. Garrison's explanation better.

    jockfever, what makes you think there is one god? You can't disprove that there may be two, or three.

    You may be pissing off two other gods who don't appreciate getting slighted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 12:46 AM GMT
    I believe it's ridiculous to deduce that just because someone's beliefs differ from your own they're moronic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 12:50 AM GMT
    Understandable, but what doesn't make sense to one person could make complete sense to another.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 12:59 AM GMT
    viitz said
    Gaydar saidI believe it's ridiculous to deduce that just because someone's beliefs differ from your own they're moronic.


    Not when they make absolutely no sense.

    Not even the pope rejects evolution. icon_rolleyes.gif


    But the Pope is the Devil! Haven't your learned your Protestant catechism yet? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 1:08 AM GMT
    I think Mr., I mean Ms. Garrison's explanation is better.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 1:10 AM GMT
    Trollileo saidI don't know WTF is wrong with all of you. I thought it was funny. Stop taking every piece of shit you smell so seriously.


    This is what happens when you insult someone's religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 1:13 AM GMT
    viitz said
    Gaydar saidUnderstandable, but what doesn't make sense to one person could make complete sense to another.


    Could argue the same for a schizophrenic.


    My argument obviously has nothing to do with schizophrenia. And nobody lives like Jesus preached.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 1:15 AM GMT
    yourname2000 said
    Gaydar saidUnderstandable, but what doesn't make sense to one person could make complete sense to another.

    You do understand that I'm only calling them a moron in my world right? --my decree of idiocy doesn't suddenly render the individual stupid in the real world right? So in that sense, it's the same: some people can believe there are little fairies hiding behind rocks manipulating the world at god's request. And I can believe those people are morons. We're both just making sense out of our worlds as each of us sees fit.


    I can agree with this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 1:18 AM GMT
    viitz said
    Gaydar said
    viitz said
    Gaydar saidUnderstandable, but what doesn't make sense to one person could make complete sense to another.


    Could argue the same for a schizophrenic.


    My argument obviously has nothing to do with schizophrenia.


    It has everything to do with schizophrenia because you're arguing that the cold hard truth can change based on the perceiver.


    No, it's not what I'm arguing.

    What I'm arguing is that it's a bit presumptuous to write off an entire group as moronic just because you don't understand in what they believe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2011 1:18 AM GMT
    Gaydar saidI believe it's ridiculous to deduce that just because someone's beliefs differ from your own they're moronic.


    Christianity seems really moronic to Western liberals....but if you make a joke about those dumbass nomadic animists in Africa, or those backward Muslims, you can bet they won't be slapping their knees at that.