Thursday, March 4, 2010

Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Sometimes I prefer unintended comedy over purposeful comedy. It's not that I don't appreciate the work that goes into a good stand-up routine or the cleverly crafted storyline and wordplay that made Arrested Development one of the best sitcoms of all time. It's just that sometimes you see and hear people make claims or do things that seem so stupid, they defy explanation. Sometimes these things are done out of stupidity or ignorance, but they're almost always done with a straight face and a serious attitude and that's what makes the downfall so funny. A great example of this is Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare, which I will embed below.



In case 2 minutes and 6 seconds is too much time out of your day, I'll quote the relevant portion here.
Life from non life, apart from God's direct intervention, is a fairy tale. ... If the theory of evolution was viable, then I should, occasionally, by subjecting this [the jar of peanut butter] to energy, end up having new life. ... On some occasion, I should find new life inside. And so, when we open the jar of peanut butter, we look in there, there's no new life. You may smile at this, but hopefully you'll never forget it. ... The entire food industry (of the world) depends on the fact that evolution does not happen.
Chuck Missler, you are correct; I will never forget this monumental failure of a rebuttal to a theory you clearly don't understand. Evolution, at its simplest, is the change in gene frequency over time. It has nothing to do with life coming from non life, and even if it did, your shoddy demonstration proved nothing but your ignorance.

Abiogenesis is the field of study that deals with life from non-life, but that isn't what you're attacking. You're attempting to disprove the entire theory of common descent with modifications and natural selection, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of abiogenesis. Evolution deals with life when it already exists. It doesn't matter how it got here - a god created it, it spontaneously arose, chemical reactions caused it to happen - because the theory of evolution only deals with existing organisms. You are, in effect, setting up an egregious straw man when you show the ant in the peanut butter because that is apparently how you understand evolution. Completely uninformed.

I strongly suggest you do some research on the field, but the basics of abiogenesis are that you have an aqueous solution filled with certain chemicals that react according to the same physics that we have today.  When subjected to energy, compounds do tend to form (a basic tenet of chemistry) and some chemicals are able to replicate. These chemicals are not, however, ants, or even cells. You couldn't really even call them life. But as they continue to duplicate and change ever so slightly, they grow in complexity until eventually, after a very long period of time, you have some very very simple organism that you can classify as life. And it's a judgment call on our part when it can be classified as "life," because after all, we define what that means.

Nonetheless, we wouldn't expect to see these kinds of chemicals necessary for life in abundance inside a packaged food product. We certainly wouldn't expect to see any kind of "new" life inside even if it had just come into being, because it would be too small. It would be on the chemical level. You wouldn't know it was there if you were staring at it.

But again, none of that matters, because it is all utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution. The evidence for common descent (which you are really arguing against) comes by the truckloads every day and you haven't disproved a whit of it by your disappointment of not seeing an insect on your sandwich. When debating with someone, try to make sure you are using the appropriate counter-arguments to their claims, and more importantly, know first what their claims are. If I told you that Manny Ramirez broke the world record for stolen bases and your reply was, "But he had the most strikeouts of his career this year! He's a terrible player!" That would be nice I'm sure, but completely irrelevant. This kind of reasoning is, in effect, what you have displayed here.

If anyone reading this would like a concise, layman's explanation of abiogenesis with narration and pretty pictures, I recommend The Origin of Life Made Easy - a 6 minute video well worth your time.

28 Comments:

Parabola said...

This was one of the most entertaining straw men I've heard yet, fallacies can be fun!

shreddakj said...

10/10

Anonymous said...

Setting up a straw man and knocking it down in order to give an example of setting up a straw man and knocking it down?

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/darwin_mind_and_meaning.pdf

Drew said...

Anon, instead of linking to a 13-page article written by a philosopher in a post about science, would you like to expound on your own ideas?

Anonymous said...

Wow you obviously have limited understanding of the complexity of the most simple life form possible and the probability of this happening by chance. You tried to make this guy look stupid but current scientific evidence doesn't lie. Darwinian Evolution fails to explain the miracle emergence of life from non life, is refuted by the lack of transitionary fossils, the Cambrian explosion and the current understanding of embryo development and bone structure to list a few. Basically modern science has shown Darwin was wrong and that inteligent design fits the evidence much better. Also notice the unwillingness of evolutionist's to debate the more well known Christian apoligists (Dawkins vs Craig will never happen Dawkins is too scared). They know they are beat so they choose to face weaker opponents.

Drew said...

Wow, you obviously have limited understanding of the mountains of evidence we have for evolution and the probability of science being wrong by chance. You tried to make me look stupid but current scientific evidence doesn't lie. Evolution fails to explain the miracle of emergence of life from non life because that isn't what the theory is about, is supported by the number of transitional fossils, and is not intimidated by the Cambrian explosion or the current understanding of embryo development or bone structure (see first freaking sentence). Basically modern science has shown that Darwin was basically right and that intelligent design is just Creationism wearing a veil with the same lack of evidence as before. Also, notice unwillingness of the creationist to admit that Craig has debated Dawkins (maybe you are just too scared to admit). They know they are in different fields of study so they choose to face people who actually know something about their specialty.

Anonymous said...

Evolution includes the claim of life from non life. In fact, it begins with the big bang. Sorry, To burst your little bubble.

Drew said...

No, evolution is solely concerned with the change of living organisms. Abiogenesis concerns the origin of life from non-life and cosmology concerns the Big Bang Theory.

Why do you insist on improper classification and why do you think it would matter, even if all of these things did fall under the 'evolution' umbrella?

Anonymous said...

Getting facts straight is its own reward. Evolution theory encompasses the big bang, life from non life, as well as the descent to humans.

Drew said...

Instead of my repeating the fact that you're just wrong, can you give me a single scientific source anywhere that agrees with you on your definition?

Anonymous said...

I'm not inclined to do the legwork to modernize your education, or give you one for that matter, after all, the internet is abuzz with pertinent information just waiting for you to devour.  However, regardless of whether you will eventually be able to disabuse your own mind to appreciate the modern and broader understanding of evolution theory, it needs to be pointed out that your revilement of the subject material is premised on nothing more than a classification nuance that clearly even you concede to be irrelevant ("and why do you think it would matter, even if all of these things did fall under the 'evolution' umbrella?").  The point that you fail to see is that, if life cannot come from non-life, which is the idea proposed by the material, then any talk of descent from that crossroad becomes suspect.  There's no point in talking about the edge of the earth if it isn't flat in the first place.  In other words, your argumentative style and approach are not even specious, but just rubbish, and you fail miserably to meet the challenge.  Further, you exacerbate your plight by ranting on with an avalanche of unsubstantiated diarrhea regarding what can and cannot be classified as life.  When warding off your neighborhood creationists, do your utmost to respond intelligently with sound, rock-solid logic, otherwise it's you who's being funny.

Drew said...

I have the feeling that your accusation of "not [being] inclined to do the legwork to modernize your education" is simply a projection of your own failure to learn what the theory of evolution actually says. Since you made a claim and then failed to back it up, I'll counter with actual evidence that supports what I've said. And since, as you said, the internet is abuzz...

"Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms." - Wikipedia

"Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations." - About

"Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." - Dictionary

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)." - Berkeley

"The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation." - Biology Online

"In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation." - PBS (scientific terms glossary)

(continued)

Drew said...

Seriously, this only took me longer to copy/paste and link than it did to actually find the material. I find it ironic that you would accuse me of not having a decent education when the information is so clearly at your fingertips and you have been so clearly mistaken.

"[I]t needs to be pointed out that your revilement of the subject material is premised on nothing more than a classification nuance that clearly even you concede to be irrelevant"

It is irrelevant what we label something as long as we have good reason to believe it. I want to make a clear distinction, however, between the theory of evolution and the big bang theory as creationists often say inane things like "Evolution can't explain how matter was created, so it's not real." This is a silly notion and I want to make clear that either theory can be true without the other.

"[I]if life cannot come from non-life ... then any talk of descent from that crossroad becomes suspect"

Evolution doesn't concern itself with how life got here, only how it changes once it exists in any form. It could have been created in a test tube, it could have come from outer space, it could have come from non-living material, or a god could have poofed it into existence. Irrelevant. What matters is that the the evidence tells us that evolution happens; don't get bogged down by other areas of science when it comes to this point. Having said this, science does not posit that life cannot come from non-life.

"you fail miserably to meet the challenge"

Again, ironic coming from you, seeing as how you've simply accused me of being wrong without really giving any reasons why. Well, maybe your third sentence counts as an attempt at reasoning. The rest, as you say, is just verbal diarrhea.

Anonymous said...

Your right that this is funnier than stand up comedy. Your persistent retreat behind the classification line between abiogensis and your brand of evolution that in your mind vaccinates you from the subject material is laughable - like a cockroach running under furniture. Further, to say that, "god could have poofed it into existence" only means that your understanding of modern evolution theory is, well, undernourished, which may explain the diarrhea.

Anonymous said...

Aw. Still under that sofa? Let me get the spray thing. Thinking much? How about those links that took so little time to copy-paste where the word evolution was preceded by a narrowing adjective? Do you know what a fartface is? I told you that fart breath comes with defecating through your mouth. Clearly, "evolution" has, well, evolved (no pun intended notwithstanding that you're still funny) to become a broader concept than you are capable of understanding. Perhaps in a few billion years (another pun not intended), you will exclaim, "urethra!" i get it!, and i can check back in and take the rest of your atheist ego. I need to show this blog to some people before you take it with you under the sofa. What's that fart smell? Oh don't worry, it's just your breath. What's that? Ah yes, another fart. Make it a wet one. Your lips are dry.

Drew said...

"Your persistent retreat behind the classification line between abiogensis and your brand of evolution that in your mind vaccinates you from the subject material is laughable"
My entire point has been that evolution does not and does not need to explain where life came from. Both you and Chuck Missler have clearly missed that and, despite the fact that you both have had this explained to you, you continue to drone on with your purposeful misunderstanding.

"to say that, "god could have poofed it into existence" only means that your understanding of modern evolution theory is...undernourished"
Again, you missed the point. Evolution only concerns itself with life once it exists. It matters not how the life first got there, because once it does it is subject to all of the forces that currently play on it.

"How about those links that took so little time to copy-paste where the word evolution was preceded by a narrowing adjective?"
Oh, you mean the word "biological?" Yes, because that is what evolution is. Any other concept of non-biological evolution you may have is irrelevant to this discussion.

You have demonstrated a lack of understanding, a lack of willingness to learn or admit your ignorance, and have, up to this point, thoroughly diminished whatever reputation you may have had by dragging this discussion through the mud. Or feces, as it were. I'll not waste any more time trying to have a discussion with you because you're only interested in flinging insults. My advice: click one of the links I referenced and learn something. But don't bother posting again here because you clearly have nothing to offer.

Anonymous said...

There you are! Phew, that smells. On the contrary, I have infinitely more to offer to you, specifically, than you can imagine. These initial pearls I'm throwing your way represent just the microscopic tip of the iceberg. But honestly, in your particular case, it's more fun to take than to offer, though it seems that there is not much ego left to take. Nevertheless, I do enjoy taking every drop in cases like yours. Yum. Broad vs specific seems to be where you have taken the end game here. "Biological evolution" vs just "evolution". The former refers to what appears to be what you use as your multi-purpose bubble shield. You're fond of gratuitously blurting out that I've missed your point, and I've given you the latitude to do it, like trash talk on a golf course, but it's time to point out that you are the master of missing points. You did it right at the top of this trash heap blog and continued all the way down to your last post. I'm sure the rest of the links in here contain more of the same rubbish. Let's look at a 5th grade analogy. When one talks of "matter" in science, he is understood to be referring to objects like chairs, tables, toys, elements, etc. In other words, matter. It's a broad word. But when one talks of fecal matter, he is then understood to be referring to the specific matter qualified by the adjective - of or related to feces. Broad vs specific. Let's try that again. Broad vs specific. So, when one mentions the word evolution, most especially in our increasingly modern era of understanding, as even the authors of those quick quotes you posted above know to do, one must add a qualifying adjective - cosmic, chemical, stellar, biological, macro, micro. Otherwise, the reference would be to the broader concept of the evolution of all matter, including us humans (okay you too), which, excuse my poetry, are the stuff of stardust. Sigh. It's actually quite a romantic concept that too often is wrecked by fartfaces. So, it seams peanut butter is a nightmare of sorts, for you at least. And what's this garbage about not bothering to post back? If that's what you really want, then take this blog down with you and eat it under the sofa. Now that I've wiped the floor clean, it is ready for your further oral defecation.

Anonymous said...

Anyone under there? It must be refreshing to encounter someone who writes better, has sharper wit, is much funnier, is more sarcastic, won't tolerate your BS, and is just all around smarter, eh? Atheism often comes with an uncompromising burden to always be right (feels like you and you against the world), and I've crashed that burden down on you. Plus, I've managed to do that in my spare time (while taking dumps, in fact), mostly because your shoddy prose makes such good toilet reading. Hey, you're the one who tried to be cute by throwing the diarrhea metaphor back, but, sadly, though not unexpectedly, you couldn't follow through. Anyway, don't worry, this experience will build your character. Now go on your way knowing that you cannot know everything, that you don't know everything, and that there are many, many people who are monumentally smarter than you. Open your mind more to finding what is true rather then forcing what you believe to be true. That way, it won't matter that you're not so smart because you'd be on the correct side of the argument. As for me, I'm on the prowl for the next fartface. That reminds me, remember what I told you about defecating - don't do it through your mouth.

Drew said...

"These initial pearls I'm throwing your way represent just the microscopic tip of the iceberg."
The only thing you've thrown at me is ignorance and poop jokes and if I were you I really would be embarrassed by your lack of ability to be any of the things you have so far advertised.

"Broad vs specific seems to be where you have taken the end game here. "Biological evolution" vs just "evolution"."
Again... they are one and the same. When any scientist says "evolution" they are referring to the process of biological evolution. That's why we have other words like "abiogenesis" that refer to what the people in the video were really talking about. You might not like that, for whatever reason, but nobody cares how Mr. Poop Jokes prefers to classify scientific theories. That's just the way it is, so deal with it.

"I'm sure the rest of the links in here contain more of the same rubbish."
AKA "I couldn't be bothered to read them because they might conflict with my preconceived ill-informed notions." About what I expected, really.

"It must be refreshing to encounter someone who writes better, has sharper wit, is much funnier, is more sarcastic, won't tolerate your BS, and is just all around smarter, eh?"
It usually is. Just don't try to imply that you belong to that group of people.

"Atheism often comes with an uncompromising burden to always be right...and I've crashed that burden down on you."
Atheism is simply the rejection of the idea that a god exists. No more, no less.

"Open your mind more to finding what is true rather then forcing what you believe to be true."
Which is how I left the faith in the first place. Perhaps it would be good for you to take your own advice, eh? You can start by learning what the word "evolution" means. And why it's a fact, for that matter. The most obvious giveaway that someone doesn't understand the theory of evolution is usually that they're a creationist. Which I would assume you are.

Which is also why you haven't actually provided any counter-arguments so far, I assume? But really, how can you defend a quote as silly as, "If the theory of evolution was viable, then I should, occasionally, by subjecting this [jar of peanut butter] to energy, end up having new life"? Just admit that the people in the video were wrong and move on. You don't have to prove yourself to me or anyone else on the internet, for that matter.

Anonymous said...

There you are! More of the same deflective evasion that misses the point, as expected. It's getting old but I'll let you lick your wounds (just be sure to clean your tongue first). Thanks for your interest in my purpose for prowling the internet and demolishing your ego, which of course you've lousily assessed. I wouldn't expect anything better from you until after you've healed. However, I'm confident that you've learned your lessons (with an s), which was my goal, and doling out lessons to fartfaces will continue to be part of my hobbies in my spare time.

Drew said...

"Evolution includes the claim of life from non life. In fact, it begins with the big bang. Sorry, To burst your little bubble."
That was your original point and it's been covered. You're wrong. Demonstrably so, as I have easily shown. Again, learn to deal with and accept it instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending those inconvenient facts don't exist.

You came here of your own volition and attempted to correct me, probably thinking that you are the smartest person you know, being as insulting as you please, and attempt to lob bombs at me without ever citing a single source or trying to refute what I've said. You haven't made a real point yet, you have a strange obsession with fecal matter, and you simply come off as rather offensive and sad. You may not be a child, but you've certainly acted like one thus far.

If you have any other points, make them and provide actual evidence that backs up your points instead of touting your own pseudo-intelligence while demeaning mine. Otherwise I'll not waste my time responding. Capisce?

Anonymous said...

A second language?! Unlikely, I'm sure. You're insulted only because all that I've said is true. If I called you a racist pig, you wouldn't be offended because that wouldn't be true (based on the rubbish you've written in this trail, at least). On the other hand, if I called you a dim-witted, corny, deluded atheist who can’t argue, well, it would hurt because that description would be quite accurate. Of course, that's not to say that any insult hurled at anyone else won't hurt for as long as it's false. No sir. We just talkin' 'bout you here (wink).
It's ironic that you've just asked to re-do this whole conversation from the beginning whilst whining 'fingers in ears' - just another example of not being smart and not knowing it, not to mention an obvious slip of projection. In lieu of a reprise, feel free to read through this trail as often as you like at your leisure. It's all there. I understand that it takes more than one pass for a fartface to absorb new ideas in general, even obscenely simple ones at that, but as I’ve earlier pointed out, I’m confident that you’ve already learned your lessons. We’ll just need to let those seeds of wisdom grow, eh?
I see that you’re quite enamored by the poop jokes. Yes, they’re funny, but they’re also true. You really do defecate through your mouth, I'm sorry to say (not!). The nonsense that you regurgitate and pose as arguments is astonishing, and your conviction that what you say makes any sense at all is just as bizarre (but funny, like the unintentional humor that you purport to enjoy). I’m afraid it's painfully clear that "evolution" is not the same as "biological evolution" (duh?), the contrary to which is your delusion. The one has become merely a subset of the other. Indeed, the very evidences you adduce deny your own assertions and prove mine. But more than that, (and here's another shiny pearl for you), the evolution of life cannot be philosophically separated from the evolution of matter in general, or from the evolution of the universe itself. All the elements that comprise life trace their roots to the formation of the cosmos (but this is a whole 'nother pickle that you are demonstrably not ready to eat).
In the end, you'll just need to deal with the facts and make them fit into your imaginary world of excrement (where you can stomach things like "rock-the-mind". Corny as hell. More like dull-the-mind. Somewhere, something is waiting to be called pure BS). You're so fond of whining "I'll not waste my time to respond..." and yet, there you are! Either responding to me is not a waste of time or you are truly full of manure (another piece of solid logic for your entertainment). Personally, I prefer the latter.
If it weren't for my jokes, this would just be exhausting. Fortunately, this blog, you and feces naturally form a mountain of satirical material. Bravo. But don't celebrate just yet for as I've earlier said, these jokes speak the truth. I've quite easily demolished every argument you’ve farted out, along with your ego, by means of simple and elegant logic (and I tell you it feels like a well-struck golf shot, but you'd have no idea what that felt like either) while you've simply continued to whine, deflect and beat around the bush - a full-cycle case of ignorance exacerbated by arrogance fueled by ignorance.

Anonymous said...

JUST ANOTHER COMMENT FROM "ANONYMOUS"

-insert random insult*
-insert another 3rd grader poop+mouth comment-
-insert long rambling poop metaphor
-...reiterate my position (opinion) almost word for word without using any facts/sources
-spellcheck for big words & immaturity (make sure to label you as immature stupid)
-insert arrogant comment about my ego & smarts

_post comment as anonymous_ *click*


(p.s. too bad you don't know who I am. I'm sure you'll resort to name faceless name-calling though hahaha)

Drew said...

Dear Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Haha pathetically corny, fartbreath. Did you phone a friend to come up with that? So you thought, "I've previously replied after having said I wouldn't but maybe no one saw it happen; oh and maybe this new reply won't count as a reply because I left it blank, besides, it's totally not a waste of time to send a blank message". Bravo, you've reached a new level of asininity. If you need it to be spelled out, here it is - you're already full of manure. Time to jettison your delusions. You've miserably lost this argument and your atheist ego is in the way of your acceptance of the fact. This is consistent with my earlier diagnosis that you carry a heavy burden to always be right as an atheist. You see, it's slowly bearing down on you that everything (and I mean everything) I've said is brutally correct and true. And how's that "diminished" reputation of mine doing? I'm sure that it's so "diminished" by now that you shudder at the thought of one day being confronted with another comment from me on another one of your dull-the-mind blogs. Doubtless this site of yours is infested with cockroach droppings that serve no other purpose than to keep your ego afloat by gratuitously justifying your twisted views to yourself. Your rebuttals, including this blank asinine one, have become increasingly laced with mediocrity. Here, let me help you draw the L across your forehead.

Drew said...

I feel sorry for you. I really do. You keep repeating things like "You've miserably lost this argument" and "Here, let me help you draw the L across your forehead" because you don't have anything of value to say. You have to just keep repeating "I won the argument" and "you're stupid" so that to convince yourself. I doubt even that is working. If you know that you don't have an argument then why do you continue to post? You have nothing to lose by shutting up. I don't know who you are and no one's opinion of you could be influenced by our conversation. Just go away and stop wasting both of our times.

I've given you ample opportunity to make a valid point and back it up with (any!) kind of evidence but you've made no attempt. I'm honestly thinking that you are a troll because I'd like to believe that no one is this dumb out in the wild. So I'm not responding to you - at least, not in an argumentative kind of way. If you thought you had something to add you would have provided some meaningful information, but all you've done is insult and repeat your unsupported claims ad nauseum. There's clearly no conversation left, so all you can do is give me a good chuckle the next time one of your shit jokes appears in my inbox.

If you legitimately believe what you're spouting is true, then watch the video I linked to at the bottom of my blog post and actually learn something. And if you're just another internet troll then seriously, get a fucking life. That is all.

Definition: Internet troll

Anonymous said...

Hahaha I believe that the language you've sunk into makes it clear which one of us is the troll. "Get a f*ing life" are your trollish words of wisdom. And do what? Put up a dull-the-mind blog like you? Yeah! This blog is what we should all aim to achieve in our lifetimes! No thanks. Perhaps you should take your own advice, eh?

"So I'm not responding to you - at least, not in an argumentative kind of way" - a.k.a. you're at the end of your wit and you're trapped in an argumentative corner which you hate (and somehow you think this response of yours won't count as evidence that you're full of manure). Sorry but, hahaha.

Let's face it, you don't really feel sorry for me (give me a break), just like you don't really enjoy "unintended comedy". You say such things only to delude yourself into feeling smug. What you really feel at this point are anger and frustration over the realization that, after all the nonsense that you've written in this trash heap blog, after all that effort and all that ego-building babble, you just really can't argue. And for you as an atheist, that's a no-no.

Your whining simply projects, reflects and confirms the reality that you have failed to repudiate any of my arguments, whilst I've effortlessly obliterated yours. You make many little cockroach comments about my peripheral rhetoric (which admittedly is entertaining on its own, thank you) but conspicuously turn a blind eye to the logically reasoned and quite easily established case that you are wrong, plain and simple. So far, your signature rebuttal has continued to feature evasion, deflection, denial, delusions, whining, projection, missing the point, corniness, troll language and degenerating mediocrity. Why, you may be the one to benefit most from, as you clumsily put it, "shutting up". In the final analysis, it is you who clearly has nothing to offer, hence the oral defecation (and hence the mountain of excrement that is dull-the-mind). Come to think of it, that's exactly what internet trolls do - pollute the internet with their rubbish. Funny that you should bring up trolls. Ah, it's all making sense.

I see you've got a sidekick! The wind beneath your wings? (totally random insults coming and going here) In his postscript, after his attempt at being funny, he laughs at his own non sequitur.....*click* Far out duuude! Rippin righteous and cruisin bro! Wet mah dictionary, dahh....nahn sek-we-tour. More like the fart beneath your wings (Now that's funny).

Finally, sorry to burst yet another one of your little bubbles, but you didn't "give" me "ample opportunity" to make my point (this what you get for repeating and repeating nonsense). I let it slide before but, what the hell, I'll take every drop. The un-deluded reality is that I aggressively and voluntarily made my point in spite of you. I made it directly, quickly, with unassailable logic, and without any countenanced "opportunity"; and I pursued it regardless of your disposition. I irrefutably crashed it into your ego and you hate it and I know it.

Oh, and one last thing - save yourself the trouble of looking in the wild. A simple mirror will do the trick.

Drew said...

This is comedy gold. I'm sorry you don't see it. Despite your repeated attempts to claim that you've made a point, you haven't. Your erroneous misunderstanding that evolution encompasses everything from the big bang to abiogenesis to the changing of allele frequencies between generations (aka, biological evolution which the "Theory of Evolution" is concerned) is laughable and uneducated. I've explained that biological evolution (descent with modification) doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis (chemical reactions forming self-replicating compounds), to which you've responded, "Yes it does." Which isn't really a point. At least, not a meaningful one. Especially considering I've actually explained the difference and why one doesn't necessarily affect the other.

I attempted to explain the broad overview of abiogenesis in this post and linked you to a video at the end with further easy explanation. To accuse me of "retreat[ing] behind the classification line between abiogensis and your brand of evolution" is to hide behind your own ignorance, since this is so clearly not what I have done. It seems like you haven't even read what I wrote, but instead skipped right on down to the comments section. I would suggest watching that video so that the next time you post a comment, I won't get the urge to tell my friends, "Hey look, this idiot posted another blindingly wrong comment on my blog again. Let's all have another good laugh."

And sadly, your fart jokes are the least funny part.

Post a Comment