• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lochness monster proves the theory of evolution is wrong

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bfdd said:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/14...larships-promise-to-fight-obamas-funding-cut/

Uh the money is tax money already assigned to the childs education, why should the State or you or I have any say as to what a parent does with their childs education? Fuck you nanny stater. I hate retards that teach stupid non-sense like this, but I also hate assfucks who think they know best and want to mandate everyone follow their lead.
Click to expand...

How about this: I don't want my fucking tax dollars going to teach children that the Loch Ness monster disproves evolution. These people can home school or pay for a private school if they can afford it. I'm not interested in providing tax money for this sort of barbaric "education."

BTW, your "fuck yous" and "ass fucks" are totally uncalled for here. You need to tone it down. I don't get your self-righteous indignation, as if you think you're smarter than they people you're debating. You're not. Libterarianism is the only ideology I know that can be absorbed by anyone slightly above chimpanzee IQ. Government bad. Yeah, we get it. Just take the state out and everything gets so much better. I don't see any excuse for such arrogance when you buy into such facile crap that provides the exact same ready made answer to every issue.

My experience with libertarians, both online and in real life, is that they consist mainly of males aged from college to mid 30's, who are of slightly above average intelligence, who think they're a lot brighter than they actually are, and are completely self-absorbed. Don't be a stereotype.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
...(fucky fuck fucks)...

My experience with libertarians, both online and in real life, is that they consist mainly of males aged from college to mid 30's, who are of slightly above average intelligence, who think they're a lot brighter than they actually are, and are completely self-absorbed. Don't be a stereotype.
Click to expand...

Lol. Add white, fat and angry, and I see at lot of the non-elderly Tea Partiers 😱

But that's a terrible thing to say...
 
Bitek said:
Because its not just their money. The entire community has invested in that child's education. Why should the parents just get to take their neighbor's tax dollars and waste it teaching their child nonsense? Parents can make their kids stupid for free, or on their own dime.

The return on investment for the community is educated, intelligent and talented students who can enter the workforce and build wealth and attract employers for himself and the community.

Stupid, miseducated children will not build the human capital the community needs to grow and prosper.
Click to expand...

Someone gets it!

Thankfully
 
Strangely enough, I graduated from an ACE school back in 84. I don't recall too many details about the Science curriculum, but it certainly was Creationist. Other than that particular subject it focused mainly on Scientific stuff.
 
Bitek said:
Lol. Add white, fat and angry, and I see at lot of the non-elderly Tea Partiers 😱

But that's a terrible thing to say...
Click to expand...

types_of_libertarian1.png
 
Howard said:
Funny to the people already predisposed against libertarianism, I guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats why I posted it. As I've stated here, I used to be a die-hard conservative. When I finally got disgusted with the Republican party in the mid 2000s, I looked at the Liberterians as a possible alternative. I do tend to like Liberterians moreso than Republicans, but both of them espouse a similar level of BS as a party. I found that most "liberterians" that I have personally met fall into one or more categories of that cartoon though.
 
Howard said:
Funny to the people already predisposed against libertarianism, I guess.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I am neither for nor against libertarians (I think they are a good thing to have around to act as a balance against their diametrically opposed opponents) and I did not find it funny either.
 
cybrsage said:
Yeah, I am neither for nor against libertarians (I think they are a good thing to have around to act as a balance against their diametrically opposed opponents) and I did not find it funny either.
Click to expand...

I had a LOL at the Left-Wing libertarian. Reminds me of lots of those dudes in college scribbling "End Corporate Welfare!" rants in angry block letters in the restrooms.

Why restrooms? Only place they ever got an audience.
 
mattpegher said:
I am a bit confused about your response. Yes evolution is part of the trick shot. If a god exists then this "supreme being" would have to be able to set up the system through a process that we call evolution to produce any end result.

The discussion on the whether god exists can be made moot since the creationists and intelligent design people are trying to use this BS "evidence" to prove god's existence. So to short circuit there argument, I propose that their definition of god is incompatable with their theory of intelligent design.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what I have been saying all along.

How is it so hard to believe that "God" can clear the table on one shot? Somehow an omniscient and omnipotent being would not have enough smarts to create a system that would yield a man in 6 days or 200,000 years?

You also forget that he is immortal, so what is a few hundred thousand years to a God?

(It is like the creationist story that highlights that God created things in "days"... even before there was "night" and "day". the first "day" there was Heaven and Earth... but not Light and Dark... so how could you measure time with no light and no atomic clocks?)
 
MovingTarget said:
Yeah, thats why I posted it. As I've stated here, I used to be a die-hard conservative. When I finally got disgusted with the Republican party in the mid 2000s, I looked at the Liberterians as a possible alternative. I do tend to like Liberterians moreso than Republicans, but both of them espouse a similar level of BS as a party. I found that most "liberterians" that I have personally met fall into one or more categories of that cartoon though.
Click to expand...

Similar people can be found in all political inclinations.

It is general symptom of mankind to be stupid. Some people are generally stupid, others rather SELECTIVELY stupid, but 75% of the people out there are "average" or below (Average being the hump, not just the 50% mark).

So, you get a bunch of self-centered humans that think they know best for everyone, and that just happens to be the same way they live (or want to live).
 
piasabird said:
This is funny.

What I would say about the supposed theory of evolution is "So What?" Lets say I said I could go along with evolution, then what? What good is this belief in species morphing into other species? What problems does it solve? So what and who cares???
Click to expand...

It actually "solves" a bunch of problems and is extremely important in stuff like medicine.
 
Ninjahedge said:
That is pretty much what I have been saying all along.

How is it so hard to believe that "God" can clear the table on one shot? Somehow an omniscient and omnipotent being would not have enough smarts to create a system that would yield a man in 6 days or 200,000 years?

You also forget that he is immortal, so what is a few hundred thousand years to a God?

(It is like the creationist story that highlights that God created things in "days"... even before there was "night" and "day". the first "day" there was Heaven and Earth... but not Light and Dark... so how could you measure time with no light and no atomic clocks?)
Click to expand...
I agree with you guys except that, in the absence of any direct evidence that this happened, it seems smartest to behave as though the theory of macro evolution is correct. I see no real value in confusing natural science (what we can observe and deduce) with what might have happened but can likely never be proven either way.
 
As I forgot to ask, how can the Loc Ness monster prove or disprove anything about the theory of evolution, when there are no reliable evidence that Nessie even exists.

When at best we only have a lot of unconfirmed sighting of Nessie, Sasqutch, big foot,Yetis, flying saucers, and all kinds of sea monsters.
 
Lemon law said:
As I forgot to ask, how can the Loc Ness monster prove or disprove anything about the theory of evolution, when there are no reliable evidence that Nessie even exists.

When at best we only have a lot of unconfirmed sighting of Nessie, Sasqutch, big foot,Yetis, flying saucers, and all kinds of sea monsters.
Click to expand...


One ACE textbook – Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc – reads: "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."
...
Jonny Scaramanga, 27, who went through the ACE programme as a child, but now campaigns against Christian fundamentalism, said the Nessie claim was presented as "evidence that evolution couldn't have happened. The reason for that is they're saying if Noah's flood only happened 4000 years ago, which they believe literally happened, then possibly a sea monster survived.

"If it was millions of years ago then that would be ridiculous. That's their logic. It's a common thing among creationists to believe in sea monsters."
Click to expand...

unbelievable...yet the bolded part is not a shock.
 
Last week, Japanese scientists placed explosive detonators at the bottom of Lake Loch Ness to blow Nessie out of the water. Sir Cort Godfrey of the Nessie Alliance summoned the help of Scotland's local wizards to cast a protective spell over the lake and its local residents and all those who seek for the peaceful existence of our underwater ally.
 
Matt1970 said:
Silly silly fools. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God and God does not disprove Evolution.
Click to expand...

No it's doesn't but I'm pretty sure the fairly tale version laid out in the bible is rubbish.

It's one thing to think there may be intelligent design behind creation and another to buy into skydaddy babble.
 
lotus503 said:
No it's doesn't but I'm pretty sure the fairly tale version laid out in the bible is rubbish.

It's one thing to think there may be intelligent design behind creation and another to buy into skydaddy babble.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. You need to take the Bible for what it is. A book composed form 2000+ year old writings put together by a handful of people deciding what they think we should read.
 
JTsyo said:
Crocodiles have been about the same for past few million years, why did they choose the Loch Ness monster to make the case? Having live dinosaurs doesn't do anything to disprove evolution, in fact it would counter the claim that fossils were placed there by God to test us.
Click to expand...

You're expecting people who oppose something heavily supported by evidence like evolution to be smart.
 
Matt1970 said:
Silly silly fools. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God and God does not disprove Evolution.
Click to expand...

And religion has nothing to do with God, and vice versa.

I hate how the concept of God has become so narrow in the U.S, that you can't even use the word without some sort of religious equivocation in day to day conversation.

Thats why I usually prefer to say the Creator, rather than God.

As for the topic, if anything is going to disprove the theory of evolution, it's the code like nature of DNA.

The premise is that since all known codes have an intelligent origin, then using inductive reasoning, DNA itself will also have an intelligent origin.

This conflicts with the neo-darwinian premise that the unintelligent process of random mutation in accordance with natural selection is responsible for the enormous amount of diversity in the modern biocosm.

However, no Scientist has yet shown how a random, unintelligent process could produce a code of any sort, much less one as elaborate and complex as DNA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top