Quote Search:
Fundie: Board:
Comment Search:
Author: Comment:
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 16
Quote# 100136

(according to Supersport, native Americans fought with dinosaurs on a regular basis)

you obviously don't have this book:

Mayor, a folklorist and historian of science, continues the project of understanding what premodern peoples made of fossils that she started in The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. Surveying accounts of Native American tradition from the earliest Spanish conquistador and missionary records of Aztec and Inca lore up through present-day Indian oral histories, she correlates Native American myths with the fossils they are known or presumed to have observed. The results are unsurprising: giant fossil mastodon and dinosaur bones engendered myths about giants—giant elk, bear, birds, centipedes, subhumanoids and mysterious "water monsters"—who populated the earth

would you like some quotes about indians finding dino bones and telling stories about them and/or using them as tools? I do own the book......... What's really cool is the stories they passed down through the generations of actually interacting/fighting with the dinos....but of course the evos, such as the one who wrote the book, think these stories were just made up...that indians by the hundreds saw the bones and then, like 3-year olds living in Make-Believe world, concocted elaborate, fictional tales about them....even though they evidently didn't construct the bones to form these creatures so that they'd know what they looked like......these "fiction" stories were deemed important enough to be remembered and faithfully retold generation after generation.

supersport, Talk Rational 32 Comments [3/24/2014 3:04:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 34

Quote# 100135

what fossil record? Even darwin knew that it didn't support his theory. Evos have been trying to rationalize the non-gradualistic/catastrophic-looking fossil record for years...this is what PE is all about. My question is how do long-agers rationalize dino-bones (including dino meat) laying on top of the ground so that American Indians and other ancients could find them and use them for tools. According to evo theory, 120 million year old bones should be way down below the surface.

supersport, Talk Rational 31 Comments [3/24/2014 3:03:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 28

Quote# 100134

well there's 2 separate issues here. The first issue is that it is quite clear by now that studying genes isn't going to tell science much about evolution or disease -- as both of these are influenced equally -- maybe even moreso -- by the epigenome (environmental factors.) Although there are a host of genetic diseases that are plaguing society, by far the most damage is being done via heart disease, cancer, MS, lupus, arthritis and other degernative diseases that have nothing to do with ones' genes, but instead how one (or their parents/granparents) live their lives. Diet, activity level, toxic chemicals, etc play much more of a role in disease than science lets on...therefor their interests should be directed towards showing people how to reverse the diseases that come as a result of years of abuse. Degenerating bodies can be regenerated, most people don't know this, but they can be taught.....even cancer can be reversed, which is just a degenerative (epigenetic) disease. Same with heart disease, high cholesterol, diabetes and all the rest....all reversible/curable if they're not too far along and haven't done too much damage. (interestingly, I read the other day that fasting actually reduces the built-up plaque on the walls of the heart's arteries.)

So the first issue is that science is wrong-headed about what is actually going to help the masses, and by merely studying genes they are wasting a lot of time and money...(not to mention lives.) The second thing -- and this is just a personal opinion -- is that our government shouldn't be in the business of health or disease to begin with. There are all kinds of companies with billions of potential dollars who can do the job just fine. If they find the cure -- genetically, epigenetically or otherwise -- the money will come. Nothing promotes a sense of urgency to produce a cure moreso than the reality that people won't get paid until that happens. But as it is, the government is in the business of "research." Thus, this "research," otherwise known as the continuing pipe-dream promise for a cure, is in itself a giant money-maker. I don't like paying for decades of empty promises -- like the 40-year "War against Cancer" -- I like paying for results....but I don't like paying for them until they're availiable. Therefore, I believe individual companies should put up their own money to do their own research and then, if they come up with a cure, reap the rewards. I don't believe my money should be stolen from me year after year to fund this chronic "research" that never produces a cure for a single thing.

supersport, Talk Rational 20 Comments [3/24/2014 3:03:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 21

Quote# 91043

[why would God give a whale lungs, placental reproduction, live birth where the mother must lift the baby up to breath, and mammary glands instead of the design of a fish? God even gave the whale the underlying skeleton homologous to other mammals, instead of one of a fish.]

why not? There are trillions of different designs, features and abilities in nature. The simple answer is diversity. God, it seems to me, loves demonstrating Himself by making unique and diverse works of art. And the funny thing is, keeping with mammals, is that all mammals share pretty much the same set of genes, no matter what they look like. It's almost like God is playing with scientists, like humans can play with cats with a piece of yarn. The idea that a mammal one day decided to start playing in the ocean and then evolve new and different traits so that he could one day swim in the depths strikes me as lunacy.

supersport, CARM 46 Comments [12/1/2012 5:04:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 48
Submitted By: dpareja

Quote# 91036

Europe doesn't have much of a moral compass anymore, so it's no wonder that the majority of them believe in evolution. The belief in a theory that says things got here for no real reason is an immoral and illogical theory. Dumb luck is not a scientific theory, anyway, yet that's what natural selection is: the unlucky variants get selected out, leaving the lucky variants. Morality is grounded in truth, and there is nothing truthful about luck as something that can cause things to originate.

Supersport, CARM 45 Comments [11/30/2012 11:05:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 28

Quote# 90957

any idiot can see that there's a vast difference between humans and apes such as chimps and gorrillas...if they didn't, zookeepers would occasionally get confused and put humans in their cages.

supersport, CARM 55 Comments [11/25/2012 3:32:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 57

Quote# 80733

[In response to a post that says: "I guess a little more hand-holding is in order. When the soft tissue fossilizes, it gets replaced by minerals."]

here...let me help you...... scientists refer to a "fossil" as the preserved remains of a creature (usually thought to be ancient) that has been dug up. the word fossil, in Latin actually means "dug up." it has nothing to do with its mineralized state. a fossil CAN be mineralized (or not) but a fossil is just a dead animal that was dug up. now stop trying to teach me things -- it's not working. you don't have the chops.

supersport, CARM 69 Comments [4/20/2011 7:24:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 103
Submitted By: Angua

He's Back!

Apparently one of his bans expired.

Quote# 79791

so now science tells us that some of the earliest humans put feathers on their heads, smeared paint on their faces and shot the bow and arrow. Eventually science gets around to telling us what we already knew. Is it any wonder that the American Indian seems to have vague memories of the days of creation?..memories that often reflect those written in Genesis?...that's because their ancestors were there.

Supersport, Talk Rational 65 Comments [3/3/2011 4:29:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 111
Submitted By: Wolfhound

Quote# 64397

A human has 23 chromosomes. One of the vegetables has 11...does that make the vegetable half a human (or there abouts)? It must, considering your logic.

Supersport, CARM 46 Comments [7/31/2009 3:30:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 48

Quote# 63313

[What exactly do genes do, then? What function do they serve? You could start with a consideration of the ~130 genes known to play a role in color. (Any why mutations in those genes alter color.)]

well I'm not going to play like I know all the functions of genes, but what I do know is they are not the end-all be-all of biology. The organism is not defined or controlled by its DNA...instead, the DNA is defined and controlled by the organism. Genes are followers in evolutionary change, not leaders. Genomes resist genetic change and generally only do so as a last resort.

Guzman (aka Supersport), Rants n' Raves 36 Comments [6/18/2009 8:48:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 45
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 16