Suck it down fundie bitches. EVOLUTION ROCKS ONWARDS!

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-24 08:55am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684927.stm

I'm sorry, I really am, but to any fundies reading this, I take concession payments in sexual favours or cash...

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-24 09:18am

weemadando wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684927.stm

I'm sorry, I really am, but to any fundies reading this, I take concession payments in sexual favours or cash...

Fundies won't be reading that. Their faith tells them to shun, burn, and deny everything that looks even remotely like evidence.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-24 10:05am

Hmm take cash if you have too.

With sexual favors lies the remote possiblity that they could breed.

And yeah they will just simply ignore and scream "BURN!!!!!"

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-24 10:09am

weemadando wrote:I take concession payments in sexual favours

Sexual favors for fundie women is them letting you see up to but probably not including their knee.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-01-24 11:01am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
weemadando wrote:I take concession payments in sexual favours
Sexual favors for fundie women is them letting you see up to but probably not including their knee.

I beg to differ. It has been my experience that the religiously repressed women are ABSOLUTE WHORES in bed. I was AMAZED by the performance of this born again Christian woman who was all about Jesus and God and marriage then after some wining and dining I was fucked six times till Tuesday and although I never went back due to the fact that I had to put up with this religious bullshit from her everytime she wasn't fucking it just wasn't worth it, it remains one of my more happier experiences in the bedroom.

Several other buddies have had the same experiences with religious girls. Face it, when you repress something so primal for long when it comes out its like a bomb.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2003-01-24 11:01am

Yeah, fundies is going to go on doing what they've always been doing and continue to deny the existence of any evidence for evolution as fake, a completely different species, etc.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-01-24 11:44am

What, birds came from dino's?

It is actualy realy cool. And one more chinck in the armor of ignorance.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-01-24 11:49am

I'm sure that there's some "theory" out there that'll try to somehow link religion to this new finding. Just a thought.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-24 11:55am

Please it's all easily encased in the ever wonderful "It's God divine(insert word)"

Seriously that's how they have and always will refute anything that tries to pierce their indomitable Wall of Ignorance.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-01-24 12:11pm

weemadando wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684927.stm

It is just me, or does that four-winged bird look like something which could be found in the Monster Manual for Dungeons & Dragons??

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-24 04:40pm

I heard about this on National Public Radio earlier today. Thats one fucked up bird.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-24 05:10pm

kojikun wrote:I heard about this on National Public Radio earlier today. Thats one fucked up bird.

Not really a bird, more a fanciful flying squirrel by looks of things.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-01-24 05:13pm

Also on that site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2680127.stm
This will result in findings that will make dino birds look like a nitpick. Evolution in action!

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-25 05:52pm

Oops! This does not appear to bode well for my pet theory - I'm in the Ground Up camp - Oh well, hopefully someone will be able to fit it into the model - Tress Down just doesn't work...

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-25 06:03pm

innerbrat wrote:Oops! This does not appear to bode well for my pet theory - I'm in the Ground Up camp - Oh well, hopefully someone will be able to fit it into the model - Tress Down just doesn't work...

<FUNDIE>See? Your theory doesn't work anymore! Therefore, the only alternative is God. It must be Him, if yours doesn't work! Haha, I just disproved evolution!</FUNDIE>

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-25 06:07pm

<g>

Yep, that's right, Christianity was right all along! I've seen the light! Hallelujah!

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-01-25 07:27pm

innerbrat wrote:<g>

Yep, that's right, Christianity was right all along! I've seen the light! Hallelujah!

You've seen the truth, the truth that is rabid religous fundamentalism! The truth that sets you free from logic and rationality!

Anyway, like they have with every other fossil found, they'll resort to either a conspiracy, a challenge for another missing like, or covering theri ears and ignoring the entire thing.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-01-25 07:33pm

innerbrat wrote:Oops! This does not appear to bode well for my pet theory - I'm in the Ground Up camp - Oh well, hopefully someone will be able to fit it into the model - Tress Down just doesn't work...

[Nelson]Haw-haw![/Nelson]

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-01-25 11:42pm

What's wrong with Tress down?
Animals jump tree to tree to get food, those that are smaller, lighter, and have stronger haunches will do better. Also if the a couple can go to further off trees then what do you know you can eat to your hearts content. Suddenly, millions of years later, there are bats and they are mating like crazy.
-I hope they catch the pun-

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-26 08:33am

Fossil history doesn't disprove religion, the only more annoying thing than you rabid faith haters suggesting it does is the ill-informed religious people who try to make strange excuses to discount fossils. It seems to me that life in the wide world may have gone on for untold millions of years while Adam and Eve were in the garden. Dinosaurs, which were obviously not in the garden, would have lived and died thus leaving the fossil records we see today. Simple, see?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-01-26 08:54am

Falcon wrote:Fossil history doesn't disprove religion...

Doh, big surprise. You can't disprove a negative, when are the fundies going to get this through their thick skulls.

...the only more annoying thing than you rabid faith haters suggesting it does....

I quess "Faith hater" is theistic for "Rationalist".

...is the ill-informed religious people who try to make strange excuses to discount fossils.

Well they truly are annoying.

It seems to me that life in the wide world may have gone on for untold millions of years while Adam and Eve were in the garden.

And the evidence proving this can be found where?
And are you seriuosly claiming that the Adam and Eve story is really true and that they lived for millions of years?
Man that's stupid.

Dinosaurs, which were obviously not in the garden, would have lived and died thus leaving the fossil records we see today.

I must confess I'm at a loss for words here...there were talking snakes in Eden, but no dinosaurs...fucking amazing.

Simple, see?

Yeap, you sure are simple.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-26 08:54am

Falcon wrote:Fossil history doesn't disprove religion, the only more annoying thing than you rabid faith haters suggesting it does is the ill-informed religious people who try to make strange excuses to discount fossils.

It seems to me that life in the wide world may have gone on for untold millions of years while Adam and Eve were in the garden. Dinosaurs, which were obviously not in the garden, would have lived and died thus leaving the fossil records we see today. Simple, see?

You really need to be locked up. Maybe you should go and find the garden? I wonder if the flaming sword is still there.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-26 08:54am

Falcon wrote:Fossil history doesn't disprove religion, the only more annoying thing than you rabid faith haters suggesting it does is the ill-informed religious people who try to make strange excuses to discount fossils. It seems to me that life in the wide world may have gone on for untold millions of years while Adam and Eve were in the garden. Dinosaurs, which were obviously not in the garden, would have lived and died thus leaving the fossil records we see today. Simple, see?

Shut the fuck up!

Goddamn it. Fossil History disCREDITS the bible. I'm not trying to debunk religion. I'm trying to get the fucktard YECs to stop making noise.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-26 09:07am

SyntaxVorlon wrote:What's wrong with Tress down?
Animals jump tree to tree to get food, those that are smaller, lighter, and have stronger haunches will do better. Also if the a couple can go to further off trees then what do you know you can eat to your hearts content. Suddenly, millions of years later, there are bats and they are mating like crazy.
-I hope they catch the pun-

I always liked Tress down. It just seemed to make more sense.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-01-26 09:20am

Falcon wrote:Fossil history doesn't disprove religion, the only more annoying thing than you rabid faith haters suggesting it does is the ill-informed religious people who try to make strange excuses to discount fossils. It seems to me that life in the wide world may have gone on for untold millions of years while Adam and Eve were in the garden. Dinosaurs, which were obviously not in the garden, would have lived and died thus leaving the fossil records we see today. Simple, see?

Actually, we don't rabidly hate faith so much as we think the world can no longer be interpeted through the lens of faith. Which is called nominalism, and is the gift of William of Ockham, a Catholic Theologian.

What you're doing is called the allegorical method, or spiritual interpetation. The idea, popularized by Ambrose of Milan and St. Augustine, was to interpet the Bible in what, for the Catholic Church of the medieval period, would eventually become four parts:

Any passage of scripture would comprise of "the letter", "the allegory", "the moral teaching", and "the anagogy". The letter is simply the literal or historical sense, which the text directly and specifically means.

The allegory, the moral teaching, and the anagogy are three possible spiritual meanings of the letter. The allegory is important for the doctrine that it supports in the Church; the moral teaching, for the individual believer, and the anagogy for transcendant reality.

In all cases, however, there was no attempt to turn use the allegorical method to reinterpet the literal historical text of the Bible, which was always regarded as absolute fact by the Church.

Furthermore, this was only Catholic doctrine for examining the text of the Bible. Oftentimes the Protestant sects did not examine the Word using the allegorical method - and I assume you're Protestant - Or if they did, they used it exclusively to support moral teaching.

Your rationalization is theologically bankrupt, let alone scientifically bankrupt. The Catholic Church has, with acknowledging the possibility of evolutionary theory, come into the fold of the modern world at least partially; people like you never shall, and need to be guarded against severely.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Suck it down fundie bitches. EVOLUTION ROCKS ONWARDS!

Suck it down fundie bitches. EVOLUTION ROCKS ONWARDS!

Re: Suck it down fundie bitches. EVOLUTION ROCKS ONWARDS!

Re: Suck it down fundie bitches. EVOLUTION ROCKS ONWARDS!

Re: Suck it down fundie bitches. EVOLUTION ROCKS ONWARDS!

Re: Suck it down fundie bitches. EVOLUTION ROCKS ONWARDS!