| Powered By BlogNow - Get Your Free Blog |
| ||
| A vain attempt at decrazification. |
| ||
|
The Banana: The Atheist's Nightmare. Just in case you can’t view it, in the video, Kirk’s loony buddy, Ray Comfort, tries to convince people that the Banana was specifically designed by God for human consumption. He points to ridges on the banana that apparently fit perfectly with our hands. He points to the way the skin is peeled, and equates it with the way we open a soft drink can. He points to the size and its relative relationship to the human mouth. He points to the curve of the banana, which is obviously designed to help us eat them. In other words, he’s going for the argument from design, an argument that has been thoroughly debunked as fallacious bullshit over a century ago. What these dumbasses don’t seem to realise is, that even if God created bananas, he didn’t create those human friendly bananas we know and love today, we did. Selective breeding, coupled with mutation has, over centuries, transformed the almost inedible bananas with giant seeds into a product more fit for human consumption. From the biology department at the “When humankind first encountered this fruit thousands of years ago we were probably not impressed by the almost inedible giant wild bananas. Historic mutations, rare and accidental, produced seedless bananas through chromosome triplication. Ancient humans focused on these seedless, pollen-less mutants to generate progressively more edible crops. Eventually, edible banana flesh retained only a few vague traces of the viable seeds once carried in the ancestral wild stock. Ancient plant breeders grew edible bananas by grafting sterile mutants onto wild stems. This process was repeated for thousands of years to produce the emasculated, sterile -- and defenceless -- plantation banana that currently feeds millions of people globally.” The same is true for all domesticated crops, as well as many domesticated animals. Our modern domesticated crops would never have evolved in the wild; neither would they survive if left alone today, as many are sterile or clones. These dipshits, with their stupid arguments, are actually presenting evidence for evolution, not design. What is infuriating is their arrogance; they actually think they’re being clever. They are obviously completely unaware of how ridiculous and fallacious their arguments are. Why? Because they’ve likely never read any scientific material that didn’t fit into their absurd fantasies. They’re so ignorant; they can still think they’re being clever. Ironic, n’est pas? This banana argument is part of their episode on how to convert atheists into their cult. You can watch the entire video here. They have a little pamphlet on how to show atheists they are really agnostic. What they don’t seem to realise is, that under their definition, they are also agnostics. They also ask atheists on the street if they are good people, completely based on their Ten Commandments. Stunning: “God will judge you based on these when you die (unless you suck up to him).” No he won’t, he doesn’t exist you fucking moron. How is this supposed to convert atheists? Simpletons. In addition, here’s a link (from the Atheist Jew: Lying for Jesus) to their entire evolution episode so you, too, can gasp at their stunning ignorance and breathtakingly dishonest tactics in debunking evolution. You only have to watch the first 2 minutes, where they mistakenly postulate that the big bang theory has something to do with evolution, to know that you’re going to be reaching for a sick bag on a pretty regular basis. It’s morons like these two who support the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes in the
Man, I laughed my ass off when Dawkins said that; so funny because it’s so true. The delivery was so matter-of-fact as well, which added to the hilarity. Good on you Richard, you’re my bloody hero. | ||
| Post Comment |
| |||
| Sadly, Dawkins is correct about this.
Also, sadly, the percentage of the US population that knows nothing is getting larger and larger. I seriously think that in our lifetime, the Dominionist push in the States will have a real crack at setting up a theocracy over there. Call me paranoid, but there is a lot of shit that just ain't right with the religious right over there at the moment. And it just seems to be snowballing. | |||
| Posted by dikkii | |||
| |||
| You may be right Dikkii. It's of great concern. Luckily, they at least have the first amendment to protect them. If similar crap was going on down here, I think we'd be seriously fucked. So far as I'm aware, we have no legal protection of separation of church and state? We might want to fix that. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| Actually, S.116 of the Australian Constitution provides for this:
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." But we're in a much better spot than the yanks if fundies ever try to change this - we can only do so by referendum. | |||
| Posted by dikkii | |||
| |||
| News coverage and commentary have focused on the threat to the teaching of evolution. But except for occasional flare-ups, that's not really the problem.
At this very moment, evolution is being taught all over our fair land and all over the US. The real problem,is that students are learning about evolution without having to abandon their belief in some form of creationism.The sheer effrontery of those students! They might simply believe that God employed "the elegant mechanism of evolution." The contempt that many scientists have expressed for Intelligent Design knows no bounds, but it can be summarized in a single dismissive sentence: "It's not science." Now string theory—that's another matter. String theory generates articles and grants and symposia. | |||
| Posted by BryanP | |||
| |||
| Thanks Dikkii. Good to know. I think I confused separation of church/state with freedom of speech. I should have spent a moment on research before I posted that silly comment. Thanks for setting me straight.
Hi Bryan, I understand your frustration in this matter. It is easy to misread much of this debate as an outright attack on religion by science. The reality (as I see it anyway) is the exact opposite. Religion is simply attempting to force its creationist dogma into science classes through political and legal means, not via established scientific channels. You said: "They may simply believe that God employed 'the elegant mechanism of evolution.'" That's perfectly fine, and would actually be a huge improvement on the current situation in the US. In recent survey results I have seen, upwards of 60% of the population flat out deny evolution; an alarming statistic. Those people who are willing to incorporate scientific findings into their belief systems are to be commended and are not really the problem. The problem, as always, is the fundamentalists; those who (insanely) claim the inerrancy of the Bible. These people exist in terrifying numbers in the United States. I don't really see this as much of a problem here in Australia. The decision about personal beliefs is up to the individual of course, but how can students be expected to make any sort of informed decision when they're being taught bogus science? It is difficult enough to teach evolution in the fundamentalist environment in many parts of the US; if ID was offered as a 'legitimate' alternative, how many more would choose that easy option and simply ignore evolution? There is a very good reason that scientists display contempt for intelligent design; it is more than worthy of it and is most definitely not science. I will attempt to explain further in a new post tomorrow and also explain why equating ID with string theory is, whilst in some ways legitimate, ultimately misguided. A new post will allow me to link to further information which, for some reason, is not possible in the comments section. Cheers. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| I wonder why he didn't use a walnut or a coconut. | |||
| Posted by The Atheist Jew | |||
| |||
| Exactly Atheist Jew. Strange that.
It's a classic demonstration of the bullshit artist's tool at work; cherry picking of data. They use those pieces of evidence that (seem to) support their ideas, and ignore all the other evidence that directly contradicts them. This is called sloppy thinking or deliberate disingenuous misdirection or lying. In the case of these two, I'll be kind and just call it stupidity and ignorance in a dangerous combination. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| http://www.drzach.net/transcripts/hellboundalleee/050606.htm
this transcript sheds a little light on the banana argument. it's between hellbound alee, ray comfort, and a few other guys. pretty interesting, they seem to actually like the guy a little | |||
| Posted by Anonymous | |||
| |||
| Hi Anon,
Thanks for the link. Bloody hell, he didn't put up much of a fight over the banana thing, did he. Soft bastard. Maybe some of the truth about the banana filtered through to him and he realised how fucking dumb his argument was, and is now distancing himself from it. Apart from that, just about everything that comes out of this guys mouth is bullshit. He trots out the same stupid arguments as those in his atheist test and his Way of the Master TV shows. How's this for hypocrisy? "The word “evangelist” was sort of tainted during the 80’s with all the horrible televangelists with their money-grabbing television programs." And what is it you do again? Oh, that's right, a televangelist program that tries to sell shit at the end (the evidence bible etc). I agree Ray, you've gotta hate those money-grabbing bastards. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| You are all gay... C3PO has a huge wang! | |||
| Posted by Anonymous | |||
| Entry 16 of 42 |
| Last Page | Next Page |