America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by jpotts. 87 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Palin’s Evolution into O’Donnell Proves Darwin Was Wrong
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248

Scientists Propose ‘Theory of Devolution’

OSLO, NORWAY (The Borowitz Report) – Two of the theory of evolution’s most vociferous doubters, Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, may be living proof that Darwin was wrong, leading scientists believe.

A conference of the most prominent evolutionary scientists in the world has concluded that the apparent evolution of Ms. Palin into Ms. O’Donnell suggests, in the words of Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo, “that Darwin got it backwards.”

“We still believe that evolution is more than a theory and is, in fact, a very real thing,” said Dr. Kyosuke. “However, in the case of Palin and O’Donnell, it seems to be moving in a reverse direction.”

Dr. Kyosuke stunned the conference when he presented his scholarly paper, “Tea Party Politicians and the Theory of Devolution,” in which he studied the so-called “reverse natural selection” at play in GOP candidates for Governor of New York.

“If we chart the trend line from George Pataki to Carl Paladino, within fifty years New York might be governed by Cro-Magnon Man,” he said.

Mr. Paladino did not offer an official response to the scientist’s remarks, but said that he had one hundred aides typing on one hundred typewriters simultaneously to craft a statement.

For her part, Ms. O’Donnell today released her official campaign platform, in which she opposes the use of simple tools and the discovery of fire.

DrMaddVibe Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
Scientists Propose ‘Theory of Devolution’

OSLO, NORWAY (The Borowitz Report) – Two of the theory of evolution’s most vociferous doubters, Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, may be living proof that Darwin was wrong, leading scientists believe.

A conference of the most prominent evolutionary scientists in the world has concluded that the apparent evolution of Ms. Palin into Ms. O’Donnell suggests, in the words of Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo, “that Darwin got it backwards.”

“We still believe that evolution is more than a theory and is, in fact, a very real thing,” said Dr. Kyosuke. “However, in the case of Palin and O’Donnell, it seems to be moving in a reverse direction.”

Dr. Kyosuke stunned the conference when he presented his scholarly paper, “Tea Party Politicians and the Theory of Devolution,” in which he studied the so-called “reverse natural selection” at play in GOP candidates for Governor of New York.

“If we chart the trend line from George Pataki to Carl Paladino, within fifty years New York might be governed by Cro-Magnon Man,” he said.

Mr. Paladino did not offer an official response to the scientist’s remarks, but said that he had one hundred aides typing on one hundred typewriters simultaneously to craft a statement.

For her part, Ms. O’Donnell today released her official campaign platform, in which she opposes the use of simple tools and the discovery of fire.




Of course Darwin was wrong.
fishinguitarman Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
The "theory" of evolution is ridiculous
Stinkdyr Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
Be careful rickymaven..........that wicked witch of the Palin East might smack a curse down on you!


Anxious
DadZilla3 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
I blame it all on those despicable conservative fiends down at the local Chamber of Commerce.
JadeRose Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
fishinguitarman wrote:
The "theory" of evolution is ridiculous




Are you serious, Fishy?
jpotts Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
JadeRose wrote:
Are you serious, Fishy?


it is a theory that, for all practical purposes, cannot be proven.

Plus, the only credible evidence that exists suggests that there needs to be a driving intelligence to force specific mutations to cause creatures to "evolve," such as gene splicing, and purposeful breeding and selection.

"Random" chance (of which no such thing exists) cannot be proven, and is near impossible to document via observation.

So, FGM is on the right track.
jpotts Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
And I would point out once again, this thread is further proof that RICKAMAVEN has serious issues concerning women.

He doesn't like liberal women.

He doesn't like conservative women.

The only thing we can conclude is that he hates women altogether.
Brewha Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Of course Darwin was wrong.


But the Vatican approves of his theory and says it is “compatible with Christianity”.

Can the church really be wrong?
jpotts Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Brewha wrote:
But the Vatican approves of his theory and says it is “compatible with Christianity”.

Can the church really be wrong?


Seeing that I'm Protestant, then yes.
Brewha Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
jpotts wrote:
Seeing that I'm Protestant, then yes.


Oh, come on!
With all the flack the Catholics have been taking, you should give them this one. It’s good to see them stepping into the 19th century . . . .
jpotts Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Brewha wrote:
Oh, come on!
With all the flack the Catholics have been taking, you should give them this one. It’s good to see them stepping into the 19th century . . . .


Well, that would put them ahead of the liberals and socialists who have yet to come to grips with the fact that tenth-century tyrannies didn't work so well.
Brewha Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
jpotts wrote:
Well, that would put them ahead of the liberals and socialists who have yet to come to grips with the fact that tenth-century tyrannies didn't work so well.

The more the light of truth and knowledge shines upon your mind’s eye – the more your iris closes . . . .

But I guess if you going to be conservative, you have to stick to the script!
jpotts Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
Brewha wrote:
The more the light of truth and knowledge shines upon your mind’s eye – the more your iris closes . . . .


That's probably one of the dumbest sayings I've ever heard.

As if one somehow has an impact on the other.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
Brewha wrote:
Can the church really be wrong?


I don't know...it's not like they'd put a Nazi in charge or anything. Whew, we can all rest well at night knowing good and well that the Catholic church is never wrong.
jackconrad Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
At least she didn't DE-EVOLVE Into A Pelosi..
Brewha Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
While evolution is incontrovertible, the de-evolution of Palin is not;
I understand she is coming out as a lesbian. PLEASE don’t e-mail me with questions about where to get videos of her gay love trysts. They will be on Amazon soon enough.
donutboy2000 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
She is inside Lefty's head.
ZRX1200 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,617
RICK.....For the 15th time brother, WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN?????? Isn't your party supposed to be the tolerent one that is "sensitive" to minorities and womens issues? Brewha, you love irony no comment here?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Brewha #13

putzboy hasn't a clue what you are talking about.

try explaining it to him. i'd like to see his response.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
jackconrad #16

jack that is the first wimpyass response i have ever read from you. it's no better then "oh yea"
donutboy2000 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
#21


12. Author: pacman357 Date: 09/11/2009  03:06 AM Reply   
It is the folly of the weak-minded, when attempting to engage in debate he would have us believe is somehow intelligent, rational and logic, to simply fall back on name calling, without respect to whether there is any sense at all in trying to label another person. As though applying a moniker on someone else makes it so.

Name-calling has failed to be persuasive as a recognized debate ever since "I’m rubber, and you’re glue" was first coined. It is childishness and idiocy, attempting to masquerade as fact and reason.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
ZRX1200 19

what the hell are you talking about. are you listening to the putz boy's "rick hates women" BS. he is a dufus. he has no describable insight into anything.
he doesn't understand anything. he didn't even understand the more light you let in the more the camera's iris closes to compensate.

i suggest if you have some difficulty with me,at least make it something you personally are upset about.

the copy and paste is from borowitz
donutboy2000 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 11-20-2001
Posts: 25,000
#23

NEWSFLASH!!!!



A camera does not have an iris.
fishinguitarman Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
JadeRose wrote:
Are you serious, Fishy?





YUP!


The Myth that Evolution is statistically possible.
To avoid allowing this discussion to become too complicated, let me quote a number of well-known scientists.

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place" (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability).

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10 340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 1080 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity" (George Gallup, famous statistician).

"The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred" (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner).

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University).

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner).

"One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether all this could conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random... nevertheless although the miracle of life stands ‘explained,’ it does not strike us as any less miraculous...." (French biochemist and Nobel Prize winner, Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity).

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated" (Sidney W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices).

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature , pg. 88).

I have about two more pages of quotes from famous scientists, some Nobel laureates, putting into doubt the notion that evolution is at all possible. However, even from the sample of quotes given above, the reader should be able to see that even evolutionists often embrace their theory as a matter of faith (like a religion), and not because there is any evidence to support it.
Brewha Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
Evolution is as incontrovertible as geometry – at least to those who actually understand the principals and evidence involved. That is why the Vatican has ratified it.
I know, it’s all very scary. Stupid people are running to and fro saying “evolution denies god”, “man didn’t come from apes”, “kill the heretic” and “Darwin worked for the Devil”.
Believe whatever you like, but don’t slow the wheels of truth because it isn’t perfectly comfortable with your personal view of God and creation.

BTW dounut, a camera has an aperture, which is a mechanical iris – you dim bulb.
Try this one: “tie two birds together. Though they have four wings, they cannot fly”.
See, it proves that birds came from dinosaurs. Really.

Today’s word is “metaphor”.
But who what to get lost in facts anyway?


ZRX – Sorry, I don’t know about Rick’s women issues. When I think of some of the women I dated . . . well, let’s just say there are a lot of “winners” out there . . . .

Rick - Is putzboy the one with the picture of a guy trying to stick a cigar in his ear?

DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
Brewha wrote:
Believe whatever you like, but don’t slow the wheels of truth because it isn’t perfectly comfortable with your personal view of God and creation.



Uh...weren't you the one saying the Catholic church is never wrong?
fishinguitarman Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,152
"at least to those who actually understand the principals and evidence involved:


EVIDENCE???

WHAT evidence???????????????????????????


Oh you meant 'lack thereof'...LMAO!



Evolution is not observable, it is not measurable, and it is not repeatable—three absolutely necessary ingredients for any theory to be deemed scientific. To be scientific, evolution must be based on theories that are falsifiable, which means that such theories can be repeated and disproved (if false) by others. The assumptions for any experiment cannot be rigged to lead only to the conclusion that the theory is true (which evolutionists have done). It has to allow the scientist the option of concluding that the theory is false. The scientific method has four steps:

1.Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2.Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

3.Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4.Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.

What makes evolution unscientific is that it cannot be tested. Some may object to this statement by saying that we can observe evolution by looking at the rocks and fossils in the Grand Canyon and many other places. The problem with that objection is that evolution, as it is defined, is not rocks and fossils, it is a process of the mutation of one species into another that supposedly continues to this day.

Since any hypothesis has to be based on observation, where can we observe the process of evolutionary mutations taking place? We can’t, because they are not taking place. In actual fact, if evolution were true, we should see many more transitional (intermediate) species of plants and animals than we see fully-formed species, yet we see none. We do not see them in the fossil layers; we do not see them around us in living "half-species." They do not exist.

However, evolutionists are not even looking at the process of evolution. They are looking at what they assume are the results of some hitherto unobserved process that they call organic evolution. They assume the results of that process are recorded in the fossil record. Their theory is based on two mutually supportive (and faulty) assumptions: that the fossils date the rocks, and the rocks, in turn, date the fossils. It cannot be both. You have to pick one or the other and test it.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o
Brewha Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
quote=fishinguitarman
"Evolution is not observable, it is not measurable, and it is not repeatable"


Observable: in the extensive fossil record, the uniform predictability of DNA between species, the similarities between all living things. Then there is that whole Galapagos Island thing (you didn’t read about this did you?)

Measurable: in the age of the earth’s records and the steady progression of species that show even before the Cambrian explosion. Carbon dating seldom lies.

Repeatable: It is going on all around us. Man’s artificial selection of plants and animals is biting evidence of the big process. Just because you can’t see the hour hand of a clock move, doesn’t mean it is still.

Look FGM, this is the best information mankind has to offer – no it’s not perfect, but it looks compellingly right to me – and most others. And it is re-tested and demonstrated all the time.
Your counter theory is that God summoned it all into existence in an inordinate fashion? That’s not even a theory! Religions across the world don’t even agree on the manner of supernatural creation – and they truly have zero evidence – not one shred.


Evolution is HOW God did it. It’s like understanding that seeds are how God makes plants grow.

Bet you don’t buy into planetary accretion either . . . .
Brewha Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
DrMaddVibe wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o


LMFAO - twice.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Stinkdy #4

i shall smite her with my firm sword and she will beg to cleave unto me. thus is the power of my firm sword.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
JadeRose he is as serious as a boil on one of his balls.

the fact that he walks upright on two legs doesn't prove anything to him.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
puyzperson #7

i wish i could understand what you are talking about so i could disagree with you
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
donutholeperson




iris

On a digital camera iris is an adjustable aperture used to control the amount of light coming through the lens. The more the iris is opened, the more light it lets in and the brighter the scene will be. Camcorders may also have an iris that works in the the same way as one on a digital camera. However, as you adjust the iris you see the brightness change in the viewfinder.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Brewha 326


NO, YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THE DONUTHOLE

PUTZBOY, PUTZPERSON, AND PUTZAYTHING IS NONE OTHER THEN

(DRUM ROLL)

JPOTTS WHO REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS A CHARACTER IN THE SIMPSONS AND WHO FELT THE NEED THE NEED TO INFORM US THAT HE AND HIS SPOUSE WERE PLANNING TO HAVE A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER. SOMETHING APPARENTLY SO RARE, HE FELT THE NEED TO ANNOUNCE IT.

HE CLAIMS TO BE A PROGRAMMER AND IS A CONSULTANT TO FORD MOTORS, FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU ONLY CONSULT WITH ONE COMPANY, YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE, BUT SINCE FORD IS CONTINUING SUCCESSFULLY. HE IS OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT EMPLOYEE.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Brewha #30

IF I PLANT 10 SEEDS IN SEPARATE POTS AND ONLY 7 GROW, ARE THE REST HERETICS. SEEDS WITH NO FAITH, OR HAS GOD A 70%RATE OF RETURN.
Whistlebritches Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
^Stop YELLING you loud mouthed little man........................................Now go take your meds.



Ron
DrMaddVibe Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
Darwin was wrong...'nuff said...GAME OVER!
borndead1 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
Creationists and evolutionists are the mirror image of each other. Both automatically dismiss anything said by "the other side", both cling to impossible timelines and "theories", both have their holy book that is infallible, both have a "saviour", and both feel like they HAVE to wholeheartedly believe one or the other. In this sense they are much like democrats and republicans. Both full of crap.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
borndead1 wrote:
Creationists and evolutionists are the mirror image of each other. Both automatically dismiss anything said by "the other side", both cling to impossible timelines and "theories", both have their holy book that is infallible, both have a "saviour", and both feel like they HAVE to wholeheartedly believe one or the other. In this sense they are much like democrats and republicans. Both full of crap.



If only they'd both become a Reese's Cup and get it over with. Their "Chocolate" and "Peanut Butter" worlds colliding make it a better treat!Brick wall
Charlie Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
Brewha #30

IF I PLANT 10 SEEDS IN SEPARATE POTS AND ONLY 7 GROW, ARE THE REST HERETICS. SEEDS WITH NO FAITH, OR HAS GOD A 70%RATE OF RETURN.



Rick there will come a time when your soul wishes you had believed in God.........
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A&feature=fvst
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
BREWHA #26

"Evolution is as incontrovertible as geometry."

the questiion that comes to my miind at the moment is,
(quie tdrum roll)
do parallel lines ever meet and if they do, where ¿

===================================================================================================(where)
jackconrad Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
No one can say for sure how we came to be

God planned it that way

To test Faith
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
charlie

i did respond to your question about why i was
jumping your case, but i forgot to hit post,

if i recall, i said we never agreed politically, but we
never resorted to personal insults. i leave that to
a few people who i shall not mention, it's enough
that i stick pins into their little dolls. it is not
necessary to believe in vodoo for it to work.

i think when the hummingbirds changed their
flight pattern and no longer visit me in droves or
flocks, my heart was broken. it must be involved
with global warming. now i sit and stare at the
empty sky and remember the good old days of
using a gallon of food per day to feed the little
buggers.

i hope ohio or utah or wherever you are isn't too
far from an ocean that you drying out from
boredom and have joined the let's get off on
insulting rick tribe.

my politics are still left of center and i am
disappointed in some of the things President
Obama has done. His attempts to work with the
republicans was and will alwauys be futile, they
are a narrow minded group of whores owned by
big business and incapable of independent
thought;.

nbills being held up by the republican senators

http://www.google.com/search?q=biolls+held+up
+be+the+senate+republicans&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-
8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&client=firefox-a

the thought of mccain as president would have
been worse. imagine sarah inviting him on a
hunting trip.

i look forward to the country being run by a new
leader of the congress boner, with help from
miller of alaska, Sharron Angle of nevada, and
Christine O'Donnell' of deleware, all via the land
of oz.

as far as my soul is concerned, i don't have one to
worry about. when my brain stops working. all
that will be left is a mass of protoplasm useful only
to medical research.

critisize my opinions, all you want, but stay away
from the personal attacks, it demeans you.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
jackconrad #45

will it be graded on a sliding scale. will i get 10 points for being a vet?
gzubeck Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 09-18-2008
Posts: 54
jpotts wrote:
it is a theory that, for all practical purposes, cannot be proven.Plus, the only credible evidence that exists suggests that there needs to be a driving intelligence to force specific mutations to cause creatures to "evolve," such as gene splicing, and purposeful breeding and selection.

"Random" chance (of which no such thing exists) cannot be proven, and is near impossible to document via observation.

So, FGM is on the right track.


You have to watch KPBS or crack open a text book every now and then to prove things. If you don't you can deny anything you want. Herfing
tweoijfoi Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
Wow, this is impressive. jpotts, jackconrad and DrMaddVibe, do you think the sun orbits the earth still?

I'm a flat earth believer. I dare you to prove the earth it's not flat. God says it is built upon pillars, and I believe that you trying to convince me otherwise is a test of faith.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tweoijfoi #49

Please see my #47. thank you.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
2 Pages12>