Mike B #fundie

Mike B #fundie fresh-hope.com

If evolution is true then how do you explain the design of the world around us and the universe. Take the human eye for instance. Man in all of his genius hasn't even come close to understanding it or duplicating it. Man has never shown even one animal that has experienced an evolution in it's self. Man has never found that missing link that takes us from being animal to being human. It is a very long leap of faith my friend to make and claim evolution as fact with out the evidence you claim. Simply Show us the evidence. You see DNA has proven evolution wrong that all humans came from one mother. Animals did not come from a human mother. Science wants to claim a fact of it but does not have clear evidence of it. Not only this but if man had been here for as long as science claims the Earth would have been over populated long ago. Evolution does not work mathematically.

45 comments

old comment by physalis17

"Take the human eye for instance. Man in all of his genius hasn't even come close to understanding it or duplicating it. "

If the human eye is so perfect, then why are our eyes upside down and why do we have shittier eye sight than cats? I hate the irreducible complexity argument. AKA I'm a dumb ass and don't understand, therefore god did it!

"Man has never shown even one animal that has experienced an evolution in it's self."

BULLSHIT! Ever heard of Artificial Selection?
We took wolves and wild cats and turned them into fucking pets through selective breeding over centuries! I'd say that's a huge example of man showing animal evolution.

"You see DNA has proven evolution wrong that all humans came from one mother. Animals did not come from a human mother."

WTF is this person going on about animals coming from a human mother?! DNA shows that we have a chromosome that fused which gives us one less than the apes.

Evolution says that we branched off from the common ancestor that we share with the apes. That is what separates us.

There's no woman screwing an ape and giving birth to animals! Seriously wtf?!

old comment by Anon-e-moose

If Creationism is true, then how do you explain how a Conservative Christian judge found for the plaintiffs, and (un)'Intelligent Design' - the last, best hope for the right-wing Funda[i]mental[/i]ist Christian Dominionists' educational agenda - completely FAILed, Mikey-boy?

A clue for free. One word: Evidence. As in the lack of such, for so-called 'Intelligent Design'; or as it was exposed in court by said Conservative Christian judge's ruling, theocratic religious dominionism masquerading as pseudo-science.

Creationism does not work in Reality. Prove the scientific community wrong, by essentially being 'God' yourselves, Creationists, then we'll talk.

old comment by

"You see DNA has proven evolution wrong that all humans came from one mother. Animals did not come from a human mother."

This would be a reference to Mitochondrial Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Apparently all our Mitochontria could be traced through a single individual on the female line.

It's not evidence of an actual Eve. I also believe there's an equivalent Adam who lived at a much earlier^H^H^H^H^H^H^H later time, but never that the 2 were the only ones in the human population.

M.E. would have been a single unremarkable female at a time past with a largish family and many peers including other males and females who were all successful. Eve's family simply dominated the female side of the group over time, although that wouldn't necessarily have been apparent to those living through the event and Eve almost certainly wouldn't have been alive to see the end of the last non-progeny female of the group.

old comment by Swede

A case of "I don't understand it and haven't got the energy to educate myself, so it must be wrong!".

The human eye is imperfect compared to the eye of octopuses, stupid. Man in all of his genius have found a great flaw in the human eye: it's backwards. How come the designer didn't, not even when he'd used a more perfect design elsewhere?

No animal that has experienced an evolution in "it's" self, is it? What about bacteria that eats oil or nylon? What about the moth in London, that was black when there was a lot of smog, but when the smog cleared up, the moth gradually turned light gray.

There is no link from animal to human, as humans ARE animals, you dimwitted fool. There are, however, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom; the Bonobo and the Chimpanzee. These three species are more similar to each other than either are to any other animal on Earth.

There is literally mountains of evidence for the process of evolution, but there is not one iota, one shred, of evidence for any kind of divine intervention, not even one iota of evidence for the existence of any deity to do the interventions.

All humans do share a common mother and a common father, they have even been found, or rather the time in which they lived; for Mitochondrial Eve about 190,000200,000 years ago, for Y-chromosomal Adam about 142,000 years ago. The animal Homo Sapiens Sapiens comes from a human mother, ya know.

The Earth was overpopulated long ago, many times in fact, but then came an epidemic of some sort to decimate the population that had grown to large. Nowadays, we have medicine and hygiene and other things to save us from most epidemics, so now Earth is DANGEROUSLY overpopulated for the first time. But maybe MRSA, which we humans have more or less created ourselves, can cull the population to a more manageable amount...

Incidentally, Mikey, where is your evidence, where are your facts, can you show us your mathematics that work.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@TheOnlyLies

"Look at you liberals"
>liberals

PROTIP: In Japan, the Liberal Democrats are the Conservatives. In Russia, the Liberal Democrats are the Hardline Nationalists.. In Australia, the Liberal Democrats are that country's equivalent of the Repubicans in the US.

So there's your supposed 'insult' - and argument - completely annihilated.

"Worshipping Science like you should worship God."

(From a thread in 4chan's /b/, in 2007):

'People believe in science because science works.

When your religion is able to teach you how to design and build any object that you can see around you (and if you live in a city, the only non man-made object your eyes can see right now are probably plants if you have any and possibly the sky if you don't live in a basement), then wake me up.

When your religion performs one single life-saving miracle (unlike medicine which, founded upon science, manage to actually do this, and on a daily basis), wake me up.

In fact, simply by writing on this forum, you have faith in the underlying engineering and science that makes the internet work to make it possible for other people to read it.

So if you actually don't believe that science works, please kindly stop using anything that exists thanks to science, and go live in a muddy hole in the ground and eat bugs and roots or something.
Otherwise, you just come up as the most fucked up hypocrite ever.

Also, no-one ever said that what we call science is a complete and exact description of how the universe works. Knowing that we don't know is the very reason we can learn things and is why the scientific method works, but since you religion fags have thrown logic out the window a long time ago, you can't comprehend that.'

From 4chan's /b/:

'I love it when godfags try to use science to disprove someones opinion that there is no god. Listen godfags, one of the things you fail to realize is that science has a built in system to keep it in check. It's called the scientific method. I'll cut to the chase. What you quoted are "theories" they do require that we test them. Upon testing you can say if it's been proven or not. Religion on the other hand does not. It's has "dogma" which means "STFU don't question anything get back in line you fucking noob". So as you can see that does not allow for one to seek out truth now does it? Why not try to hold your same level of requirement of proof that you put science to? Because it would endanger your precious belief system and put your faith at risk. And you can't have that now can you?'

"Telling yourselves lies until you confuse them for truth."

When asked by Pontius Pilate 'What is Truth?', Jesus couldn't answer. Who are you to dare to presume you know more than your 'Saviour'?

Not even the Bible - the supposed 'Word of God' - can give an exact, precise, Oxford English Dictionary-esque definition of the word. Now, doesn't that in itself conclusively prove that the Bible isn't the 'inspired' 'Word of God', but the ramblings of a bunch of Bronze Age goatfuckers with ideas above their stations? Surely in his 'inspiring' of said authors, he could at least have given them 'inspiration' to exactly, precisely define 'Truth'? If he was as 'omniscient', never mind 'omnipotent' as you lot claim he is...?

...but then, if he's as 'omnipotent' as you claim he is, then he wouldn't have needed said human authors to 'inspire', but simply poofed his 'Word' into existence, just like he did with the universe, this world & all the life on it - but not Adam & Eve in the same way, funnily enough. [/Fridge Logic] [/sarcasm]

'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it'

-Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister

Hitler was a Christian. A Creationist too. [/Godwin]

'The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist'

-Baudelaire

The greatest trick humanity ever played on itself was convincing people that a 'God' did exist.

-Anon-e-moose

'I know it's absolutely true, because the Bible is always absolutely true.'

Harold Camping

22nd May/October 2011 proved him wrong. But the Bible is always right, amirite? Perfect. Flawless. Inerrant. But if it's open to 'interpretation', just as Harold Camping did - and fact: it was humans who wrote the Bible, not God; and humans are imperfect, flawed, and make errors - then, therefore...!

Matthew 24:36. But if the Bible itself can't give exact, precise information on when said 'Apocalypse/Second Coming' will happen, down to the year, month, day, hour, minute, second, nanosecond; even down to precise GPS data on where it'll start, then why should the Bible be trusted re. If it'll happen? [/Spartan Laconic Wit]. Thus what Jesus says himself - in Matthew 24:36 (emphasis added):

'Of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my father only.'

Destroys the credibility of the Bible too. Jesus - one part of the Trinity - and God himself in human form; and isn't the Trinity supposed to be one, even though in three parts, therefore by definition, a gestalt intelligence, or 'collective consciousness'; what one part knows, thus all know (rather like "Star Trek"'s Borg, or "Battle Beyond the Stars"' Nestor)? Jesus himself admits that he doesn't know when it'll happen. Therefore, if he doesn't know, ergo he's not God, thus not only is the 'Trinity' & Christian doctrine rendered completely invalid, but the basis of Christianity itself - and therefore everything claimed by it's believers; 'Truth' - is destroyed. QED.

In conclusion:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=75182&Page=2

#1192213
@Pule Thamex

'Don't cry little one. There's no way that you can ever show any evidence for the existence of God, so you'll just have to live with it and think up lots and lots of completely daft apologetics or resort to the telling of blatant lies for the eternal lack of evidence. Of course you could try and get everyone to kowtow to your dogmas by the use of brainwashing and threats of violence, like the Islamics do. But then everyone would see Christianity for what it truly is, a hideous cover for the criminal and evil beings who control their followers.

The reason why you can't ever show any evidence for God's existence is because God is a completely man-made idea and He doesn't really exist. Really, you're following the word of a low-life human who seeks only to raise his lowly self up above those he considers to be gullible simpletons, dimwits like you.'

old comment by Doubting Thomas

Take the human eye for instance. Man in all of his genius hasn't even come close to understanding it or duplicating it.

Optometrists and anyone who has ever owned a camera will disagree.

Man has never shown even one animal that has experienced an evolution in it's self.

Nylon-eating bacteria. E-coli which evolved to consume citrate.

Simply Show us the evidence.

Why? So you can ignore it and claim that there is no evidence? There is plenty of evidence out there if you care to understand it.

Please show us evidence of biblical creationism. And simply saying, "it looks like it was designed" is not evidence.

Animals did not come from a human mother.

No, they didn't. And that's not what evolution says and you should know it.

if man had been here for as long as science claims the Earth would have been over populated long ago.

How so? We had a lot shorter lifespan about 200 years ago, and before that it was even shorter. Not to mention that infant mortality was awful high just 100 years ago. It's thanks to modern science that you despise so much that we are able to live longer with a higher chance of survival these days.

old comment by Dr. Razark

"If evolution is true then how do you explain the design of the world around us and the universe."
If the universe was specially created for humans, why is 99.999% of it lethal to us?

Human eye? Yes, it's a remarkable thing. If everything was designed by one all-knowing and all-powerful being, why are there so many different designs of eyes in the world? BTW: Cameras.

Missing link? Every time you are shown a "missing link", you claim that now there's two gaps to be filled. (And humans are animals.)

"Simply Show us the evidence."
We have. There's a few problems with that. (A.) You don't understand the evidence. (B.) You refuse to accept the evidence. (C.) You claim the evidence is all fake, unless (C.A.) you twist it to appear to apply to your argument.

"...all humans came from one mother."
See (A.) and (C.A.) above.

"Not only this but if man had been here for as long as science claims the Earth would have been over populated long ago."
This is very true. Obviously, there have been absolutely no changes in agriculture resulting in increased crop yields in the past 10,000 years.

old comment by dionysus

Take the human eye for instance. Man in all of his genius hasn't even come close to understanding it or duplicating it.

Why would we want to? A device that's prone to breaking down in a large segment of the population, some of which never had a working one to begin with, which sees the world upside-down and has a blind spot that has to be compensated for by the device being wiggled around constantly? An engineer would puke with rage if he had to approve that design. The designer would be fired immediately and never be able to find work again.

@TheOnlyTruth

Look at you liberals. Worshipping Science like you should worship God. Telling yourselves lies until you confuse them for truth.

I don't worship science, I don't worship anything. But if it comes down to it and I have a gun pointed to my head and I have to worship SOMETHING, well, science is far more worthy of worship than God. Science eradicated small pox, God got his ass kicked by the black plague. Science feeds several billion people, God lets people starve even though he can produce manna from heaven. Science can transplant a heart, God can't even transplant a hair. Science works, God doesn't.

old comment by Zagen30

Take the human eye for instance. Man in all of his genius hasn't even come close to understanding it or duplicating it.

We understand how the eye works pretty darn well. Light stimulates the rods and cones in the retina, which send electrical impulses to the brain, which interprets those impulses and produces the effect of vision. Other portions are responsible for things like focusing and controlling the amount of light that enters the eye. We've understood all that for a while, too

As to not being able to duplicate it... It may not exactly be an artificial eyeball, but we can make a crude approximation of the eye's function and bypass the damaged parts of people's eyes. With time, this technology will only improve.

It is a very long leap of faith my friend to make and claim evolution as fact with out the evidence you claim. Simply Show us the evidence.

You'll just say it doesn't prove anything, even though you don't have the training to actually understand half of it. The goalposts will never stand still for fundies.

Mike B #fundie fresh-hope.com

45 comments

Confused?