This got to be one of the best rants all time

[Inspector Jihad]

lawl

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: KoopaTroopa

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Living in the bible belt I've had the door-to-door religious folks stop by occasionally, and I do openly and politely discuss with them how their belief systems are wrong. It's fun when they try and explain the flaws of evolutionary theory, and how it is "just a theory". Even more fun that one thinks he knows what he's talking about, but you can see the seeds of doubt rise in the eyes of the secondary as you explain the simple facts of evolution, a system you can recognize in your day-to-day rather than some system of faith. They all give up at some point when it becomes obvious that I know more on the subject than they do, though they will leave pseudo-scientific pamphlets on matters like UFOs (seriously). Needless to say, I don't get a lot of repeat visits though they all promise to come back once they've "researched" the answers. I usually give them an out in that faith in science does not preclude the existance of a higher order, and that faith is a personal experience which can't be shared. I wonder if any of them are converted.

evolution is not so agreed upon as you believe, or 'simple' as you say. although it annoys the heck out of me when religious fundies try to spout off arguments against evolution with no idea what they're talking about, people who believe that everyone accepts a gradual darwinian evolution as fact irks me too. there are major players, such as the late stephen jay gould, who espoused punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory of evolution i tend to hold to more...i think it is a better explanation as to the lack of evidence in the fossil record for small gradual, incremental changes.

It's agreed upon as in the sense of its existance. In order to disprove evolution, or any theory for that matter, all one has to do is present one solid piece of testable evidence that would categorically disprove the theory. One cannot prove something outright but merely needs to disprove it in order for it to be discreditted. We've been here for 14 billion years and nothing yet.

 

[RapidSnail]

Since it's blocked here, I'm guessing from the URL that some atheists try to convert some Mormons to their religion, to which proposal the Mormons become angry.

 

[KoopaTroopa]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: KoopaTroopa

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Living in the bible belt I've had the door-to-door religious folks stop by occasionally, and I do openly and politely discuss with them how their belief systems are wrong. It's fun when they try and explain the flaws of evolutionary theory, and how it is "just a theory". Even more fun that one thinks he knows what he's talking about, but you can see the seeds of doubt rise in the eyes of the secondary as you explain the simple facts of evolution, a system you can recognize in your day-to-day rather than some system of faith. They all give up at some point when it becomes obvious that I know more on the subject than they do, though they will leave pseudo-scientific pamphlets on matters like UFOs (seriously). Needless to say, I don't get a lot of repeat visits though they all promise to come back once they've "researched" the answers. I usually give them an out in that faith in science does not preclude the existance of a higher order, and that faith is a personal experience which can't be shared. I wonder if any of them are converted.

evolution is not so agreed upon as you believe, or 'simple' as you say. although it annoys the heck out of me when religious fundies try to spout off arguments against evolution with no idea what they're talking about, people who believe that everyone accepts a gradual darwinian evolution as fact irks me too. there are major players, such as the late stephen jay gould, who espoused punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory of evolution i tend to hold to more...i think it is a better explanation as to the lack of evidence in the fossil record for small gradual, incremental changes.

It's agreed upon as in the sense of its existance. In order to disprove evolution, or any theory for that matter, all one has to do is present one solid piece of testable evidence that would categorically disprove the theory. One cannot prove something outright but merely needs to disprove it in order for it to be discreditted. We've been here for 14 billion years and nothing yet.

oh, i definitely believe in evolution. what i am saying is that gradualism, as a means of large scale speciation, is inadequate. punctuated equilibrium is still evolution - it just believes that change occurs in spurts, with long periods of stasis.

there is a lack of intermediary/transitional fossils in the fossil record. even darwin acknowledged this. what i am saying is that the mechanisms driving macro evolution have always been debated, and will always be debated, among the greatest biologists (for example dawkins vs. gould). there are many biologists who disagree with the idea that pure competition, causing incremental changes over time, is the sole cause of speciation.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: KoopaTroopa

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: KoopaTroopa

Originally posted by: Slammy1
Living in the bible belt I've had the door-to-door religious folks stop by occasionally, and I do openly and politely discuss with them how their belief systems are wrong. It's fun when they try and explain the flaws of evolutionary theory, and how it is "just a theory". Even more fun that one thinks he knows what he's talking about, but you can see the seeds of doubt rise in the eyes of the secondary as you explain the simple facts of evolution, a system you can recognize in your day-to-day rather than some system of faith. They all give up at some point when it becomes obvious that I know more on the subject than they do, though they will leave pseudo-scientific pamphlets on matters like UFOs (seriously). Needless to say, I don't get a lot of repeat visits though they all promise to come back once they've "researched" the answers. I usually give them an out in that faith in science does not preclude the existance of a higher order, and that faith is a personal experience which can't be shared. I wonder if any of them are converted.

evolution is not so agreed upon as you believe, or 'simple' as you say. although it annoys the heck out of me when religious fundies try to spout off arguments against evolution with no idea what they're talking about, people who believe that everyone accepts a gradual darwinian evolution as fact irks me too. there are major players, such as the late stephen jay gould, who espoused punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory of evolution i tend to hold to more...i think it is a better explanation as to the lack of evidence in the fossil record for small gradual, incremental changes.

It's agreed upon as in the sense of its existance. In order to disprove evolution, or any theory for that matter, all one has to do is present one solid piece of testable evidence that would categorically disprove the theory. One cannot prove something outright but merely needs to disprove it in order for it to be discreditted. We've been here for 14 billion years and nothing yet.

oh, i definitely believe in evolution. what i am saying is that gradualism, as a means of large scale speciation, is inadequate. punctuated equilibrium is still evolution - it just believes that change occurs in spurts, with long periods of stasis.

there is a lack of intermediary/transitional fossils in the fossil record. even darwin acknowledged this. what i am saying is that the mechanisms driving macro evolution have always been debated, and will always be debated, among the greatest biologists (for example dawkins vs. gould). there are many biologists who disagree with the idea that pure competition, causing incremental changes over time, is the sole cause of speciation.

But even Darwin said:

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed., 229.
He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force of tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings...will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful co-adaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation. ... To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

If he ever starts the "Church of Leave Me the Hell Alone You Deluded Freaks" I'll be his first disciple.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Awesome. Me thinks the ones that don't find it funny are the same ones that applaud people that try to spread their Christian faith on others. He's not doing this to convert people, because he knows it doesn't work. He's doing it to get back at Mormons for knocking on his door, and what better place to do it than, the Morman capital of the world.

 

[Alienwho]

I'll bet you that guy had to do A LOT of out-takes before he finally got enough people being rude enough to put in his little mockumentary. And i'll bet you most of the people being rude to him (slamming the door in his face) were non-mormons who thought he was a real mormon missionary, which is why they did it! hehe. Too bad he doesn't show all the people that actually invited him in and fed him.

 

[So]

Bwahahaha...that's excellent!

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Alienwho
I'll bet you that guy had to do A LOT of out-takes before he finally got enough people being rude enough to put in his little mockumentary. And i'll bet you most of the people being rude to him (slamming the door in his face) were non-mormons who thought he was a real mormon missionary, which is why they did it! hehe. Too bad he doesn't show all the people that actually invited him in and fed him.

It was comedy. His point wasn't that they were bad people -- just that mormons didn't like it any more than the rest of us.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Alienwho
I'll bet you that guy had to do A LOT of out-takes before he finally got enough people being rude enough to put in his little mockumentary. And i'll bet you most of the people being rude to him (slamming the door in his face) were non-mormons who thought he was a real mormon missionary, which is why they did it! hehe. Too bad he doesn't show all the people that actually invited him in and fed him.

It was comedy. His point wasn't that they were bad people -- just that mormons didn't like it any more than the rest of us.

:thumbsup:

 

[SonnyDaze]

Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
wow, i'd like to punch that guy in the face.

And rip out his squeeky little voice box.

 

[Kev]

haha

 

[ViviTheMage]

so funny

carefactor = 0

 

[txrandom]

All the Mormons I know are some of the nicest people I've met, and they've never pushed their beliefs on me.