Quote# 51962

Oh! It just hit me. The reason why we never hear about plant evolution is because plants don't have sexual intercourse...well, at least not in the way evolutionists like to envision it. See, evos are obsessed with sex, especially if it's forced sex or if it's between two different types of animals, like chimps and humans. But since plants don't do any of that, then they're just simply less sexy of a topic. Science only gets interested when animals have harems or multiple partners, or -- of course -- if they're's any homosexual activity going on...that as well gets them real excited. I suppose the ultimate zenith for science would be evidence of homosexual activity between a Neanderthal and a chimp.

supersport, CARM 61 Comments [11/11/2008 12:22:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Yehuda

Quote# 50614

And the fact remains that ToE, and more specifically natural selection, was a theory dreamed up to get around miracles and/or mystical things like minds and intelligence. So natural selection is the only adaptive mechansim that could (theoretically) cause populational change in a materialistic (aka mindless/non-intelligent) way. Any other mecahnism, as far as I've been able to reason, invokes scientifically unexplainable and mystical mechanisms, as they require signals and self-organizational processes within the body which have no known physical cause or origin.

Supersport, Evolution Fairytale Forum 30 Comments [10/26/2008 9:18:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Mr Smith

Quote# 50407

you dopes never learn, do you....when are you going to learn to not doubt me?

http://www.nutrition2success.com/information/cats.php


If you do a little research on the subject you will learn that they used to do REAL science back in the good ole days before Darwinism was such a mainstream kook religion that was not to be questioned. Anyway, Dr. Pottenger did an experiment on cats that lasted many years and many generations whereby he took different groups of cats, feeding one group healthy foods such as raw meat, while the other he fed cow's milk and cooked meat, both of which had had any good nutrients and enzymes cooked out of them. As you will see in the above link, the cats placed on the crummy diet, within just a few generations developed all kinds of heritable diseases, anxiety, behavioral problems, eye problems, and all kinds of other problems including: Increasingly abnormal activities occurred between the same sexes

If science was worth a cotton-picking penny they'd be doing all kinds of these types of experiments on animals like rodents or cats or whatever to validate or invalidate the findings of Dr. Pottenger...(which, incidentally have already been verified by another scientist (forgot his name) who had many of the same results with mice. But the problem is, today's science is full of pigs who don't know how to do real science....they don't know how to do any experiment that might contradict their dingbat, non-intellectual theory that says everything we see around us just happened to form because it popped up by dumb chance in the right place, at the right time and in the right conditions so that the organism got laid more than others, with absolutely no evidence to back up such a wild and goofy hypothesis.

(Referring to an earlier post by same guy: http://fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=50098)

Supersport, Talk Rational 38 Comments [10/23/2008 4:38:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Dungdae

Quote# 50098

homosexuality is, in part anyway, caused by the diet of parents and granparents...specifically on the maternal side. It's just another example of how you are what you eat.....if you or your prior generations consume(d) a bunch of junk...alot of sweets, fats, sugars, sodas, pizzas, chemicals, etc....you're likely to produce junky, dysfunctional kids who are angry, frustrated, rebellious, lazy, non-productive and, yes, oftentimes homosexual -- all of which will most certainly turn out to be angry libs.

Supersport, Talk Rational 67 Comments [10/18/2008 9:38:35 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Laton

Quote# 48528

So all you people believe that if you put your hand in front of your face that the image of the hand you are seeing is actually in your skull (behind your eyes) and not right in front of you?...the image of your hand is in your brain, not outside your brain (where it actually is)? You've got to be kidding me. Is there any other reason needed why nobody trusts science anymore? what a bunch of quacks.

supersport, CARM 56 Comments [10/5/2008 12:15:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Yehuda

Quote# 45576

Today's science is truly nothing more than a group of people who make up silly stories...most of them fueled, in my opinion, by a deep desire to live in trees and mate with various wild apes, especially chimps.

Supersport, CARM 29 Comments [8/22/2008 2:10:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Barry Desborough

Quote# 43108

[supersport explains the Luria-Delbruck experiment]

the problem for you people is that genomes work as a whole....the population works as a single unit, on which there is no selection.....there is a colony-wide communication going on that evos can't see and don't want to see, and the unfit members of the community are self-destructing for the benefit of the whole, not being murdered by selection, as evos would like.

supersport, CARM 30 Comments [7/18/2008 9:17:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 43104

why? because we all have adaptive genomes. Your theory says that if there were a million people in the population, one lucky person would sport, by chance, antibiotic resistance. In reality, if each person took a few rounds of antibiotics, they would ALL develop resistance. No evolution; just individual adaptation.

supersport, CARM 30 Comments [7/18/2008 7:18:36 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 42235

Evo/Atheist hypocrisy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it so very interesting how atheists are so sure of themselves that there is no God, and that all lifeforms somehow appeared and evolved randomly, without any sort of intelligence to either start or fuel the process. And even more interesting is how they seem so utterly confident in this illogical position.

Of course, this mindset is ludicrous...and here's why: Evos/atheists (Yes, they're one in the same on this forum) don't believe the universe was created by God, who by definition is a creator and thus capapble of creating........so essentially, what they don't believe in is an entity capable of creating existence.

So if that is the case, my question is this: if God (a capable entity) isn't responsible for existence, what is?....something not capable? And how are you so sure of yourself when you don't really know what this non-capable thing is?

Paradoxically, natural selection is claimed to be a creative entity (Darwin and his minions claim it's responsible for speciation and evolution as a whole), yet it's never been tested scientifically or proven to produce a single thing or adapt even one population.

So what we have is a small sect of people (10% of the population) who believe whole-heartedly via blind faith in a biological mechanism that has never been seen or proven to create or adapt anything, yet at the same time, they are so absolutely sure of themselves that no entity exists who is capable of creating existence.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy and religiousness of this?

supersport, CARM 32 Comments [7/2/2008 5:05:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 40888

Atheists live to kill people...especially babies, old people and anyone who disagrees with their politics of hate. If people don't hate what they hate, atheists just kill them. And if atheists don't want people around -- such as developing fetuses or sick people, it's ok to just snuff 'em out and throw 'em away like trash.

Supersport, CARM 62 Comments [6/13/2008 10:30:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Quasarsphere