 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| HOLY SHIT I'm surrounded by assholes! (long, boring, AIM logs) by laudablepuss 06/14/2006, 7:50pm PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| (16:48:13) laudablepuss: Two of my friends are creationists
(16:48:19) laudablepuss: A third is sympathetic (16:48:33) mark: Yikes! (16:48:43) laudablepuss: I was like HOLY SHIT (16:49:01) mark: Did you just find this out? (16:49:18) laudablepuss: Yes today (16:49:37) mark: how did it come up? (16:49:41) laudablepuss: I was laughing at this faggot: http://www.dontmindme.com/6bid0415.php (16:49:47) laudablepuss: He's a canadian btw (16:50:07) laudablepuss: They were like haha no I sorta agree (16:50:09) laudablepuss: !!! (16:50:25) mark: "Even though many millions of people in North America believe in creationism, and many more have serious doubts about Darwinism, the general attitude of the media and scientific establishment toward creationism is outright hostility." (16:50:36) mark: YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE ABOUT SCIENCE (16:50:46) mark: (THANK GOD) (16:51:16) laudablepuss: Yeah, why the hostility? Wow man, I'm just, like, thinking here dude (16:51:22) laudablepuss: Geeze chill! (16:51:34) laudablepuss: Let's all be reasonable and talk about the merits of ID (16:51:45) mark: "Only it's not. When you live in a free and open society, almost everything is open for debate. No matter how certain you are that your position is correct, you aren't allowed to stifle opposing viewpoints. But that is exactly what is happening with creationism, and I'm not entirely sure why. The way debate is suppressed on this topic you'd think we were living under the Taliban." (16:52:30) laudablepuss: Right, stupidity IS allowed in a free society (16:52:32) mark: Actually, living under the taliban would probably be much easier for creationism (16:52:47) mark: as I'm pretty sure that's what they believe (16:52:53) laudablepuss: But by the same token, calling this guy a flaming faggot is also totally allowed (16:53:28) mark: "The proponents of evolution argue logic over faith, but they seem to have abandoned their own logic for blind faith in Darwin." (16:53:46) laudablepuss: He calls em like he (fails to) see em (16:53:51) mark: I love when people who failed high school biology start to preach about science (16:54:25) laudablepuss: Hey, Marko Peric thought about evolution ALL NIGHT the other night and now he's got something to say, man. (16:54:39) laudablepuss: These are my thoughts, entitled "thoughts" (16:54:43) laudablepuss: it's pretty deep (16:55:30) mark: These creationists do believe in bacterial evolution right? They aren't that dogmatic, I hope. (16:56:06) mark: or bacterial mutation, at least (16:56:23) laudablepuss: One says he can't see how single celled animals became mulitcellular (16:56:30) laudablepuss: I'm like, but you can see that it happened, right? (16:56:35) laudablepuss: I mean, where'd they come from? (16:56:45) laudablepuss: One I haven't had a chance to talk with much (16:57:03) mark: I hate that sort of stoner argument that the creationists make (16:57:20) mark: "it's, like, way to complex, dude!" (16:57:49) laudablepuss: yeah isn't that great (16:57:54) laudablepuss: One said "let's not go there" (16:58:00) laudablepuss: FAGS (16:58:04) mark: staring at the back of their hands (16:58:58) laudablepuss: This one was great: "Besides, it's said that Darwin himself said that everything that he speculated and fought over for evolution was all wrong and he was just trying to get back at his dad for being a religious phsyco." (16:59:03) laudablepuss: WHAT NOW? (16:59:10) mark: I'd like just one ID article to end with "Also: Fuck Galileo." (16:59:52) laudablepuss: There's a thing on the New Scientist blog about some shitheads using "quantized redshift" to demonstrate that the earth is at the center of the universe. I shit you not. (17:00:00) laudablepuss: That was just yesterday I saw it (17:00:04) mark: I like the vision of all evolutionary supporters worshipping darwin. That's what we do! (17:00:18) mark: !!! (17:00:23) laudablepuss: Yep, we have secret shrines in our basements to Darwin (17:00:31) mark: good lord (17:00:54) laudablepuss: Yeah, the fact that the redshifts we see in stars seem to be stepped as opposed to continuous (17:01:11) laudablepuss: One guy was like, "these guys are using really complex math, then pretending to be clueless about what it means" (17:01:24) laudablepuss: (A guy talking about the nutjobs that is) (17:01:35) mark: I don't even understand why fundamentalists need the earth to be at the center of the universe (17:01:42) laudablepuss: I mean, they all clearly have this big ass axe to grind. Who can't see that? (17:01:42) mark: where does it say that in the bible? (17:01:51) laudablepuss: No shit! Then I found out a coworker of mine was a nutcase too (note: this guy is really cool and otherwise very intelligent): (17:41:44) laudablepuss: I found out that two of my friends are creationists! And a third is sympathetic! (17:41:52) laudablepuss: I don't even know what to do! (17:42:09) coworker:: well.. creationism answers more questions than evolution (17:42:18) laudablepuss: Does it? (17:42:29) coworker:: even if you are a scientist.... (17:42:34) coworker:: the intricicies (17:42:40) laudablepuss: Is "just cuz" really an answer? It didn't seem like an answer even when I was a kid . . . (17:42:41) coworker:: the non-randomness (17:42:56) coworker:: well. there is cetainly 'design' (17:43:02) laudablepuss: Are you a creationist? (17:43:08) laudablepuss: o_O (17:43:22) laudablepuss: What non-randomness? (17:43:25) coworker:: by proxy of my faith yes.. but i am also intelligent design from my science background (17:43:34) laudablepuss: Whoa (17:43:37) laudablepuss: Okay (17:43:51) coworker:: if you know about organic chemistry (17:43:53) laudablepuss: I studied evolution pretty extensively when I was in college pursuing paleontolgy (17:44:01) coworker:: and 'handedness' of molucules... (17:44:20) coworker:: and how generally in an 'open system' you get equal numbers of each (17:44:40) coworker:: but in DNA and organic matter.. it is all left handed (17:44:46) laudablepuss: I know all about molecule handedness (17:44:52) laudablepuss: Yes, that's correct. Not design (17:45:11) laudablepuss: More proof of a common ancestor for everything (17:45:22) coworker:: but where did that anscestor come from (17:45:29) laudablepuss: Good question (17:45:37) coworker:: and the ancestor to that (17:45:38) coworker:: etc.. (17:45:43) coworker:: if you look at reproductio n (17:46:08) laudablepuss: You don't think life can arise from prebiotic chemicals? (17:46:13) coworker:: and some random mutation changed something into a 'higher' being.. where did the mate come from (17:46:18) laudablepuss: When it's created in a lab will you be pretty surprised? (17:46:19) coworker:: no (17:46:37) coworker:: spontanious generation was laughed at (17:46:39) coworker:: remeber (17:46:49) laudablepuss: So was catastrophism [note: proven sorta correct by things like the big meteor that killed the dinosaurs -- didn't get to talk about that] (17:46:52) coworker:: and proven incorrect (17:47:00) laudablepuss: one second . . . (17:47:06) coworker:: rewind... al the way to the beginning (17:47:10) coworker:: big bang (17:47:18) coworker:: what caused the big bang (17:47:33) coworker:: where did the fundamental elements for the big bang come from (17:54:12) laudablepuss: Who cares? (17:54:17) laudablepuss: Look let's try to limit the focus here (17:54:32) laudablepuss: Single celled organisms became multicellular organisms (17:54:34) coworker:: well.. the discussion starts there does it not? (17:54:38) laudablepuss: No (17:54:44) laudablepuss: Science isn't like religion (17:54:58) laudablepuss: Science looks at a small, solvable or knowable part of the problem (17:55:00) coworker:: so there was no 'beginning' to the universe (17:55:07) laudablepuss: then it grabs another small, solvable problem (17:55:20) laudablepuss: Then some people get a head rush and try to explain the universe (17:55:26) coworker:: but if you are approaching the question incorrectly (17:55:44) laudablepuss: Why would I suppose that science is the incorrect way to approach any problem? (17:55:50) laudablepuss: This one in particular? (17:55:53) coworker:: no (17:56:06) coworker:: that single cell org _become_ multicellular (17:56:45) coworker:: other than growth or reproduction.. where is there a viewable example of an bacteria turning into someting else (17:56:50) coworker:: yeast is still yeast (17:57:02) coworker:: ants are still ants (17:57:16) coworker:: there is veriations.. (17:57:24) laudablepuss: Bacteria are a type of organism called prokaryotes (17:57:47) laudablepuss: We can see how some prokaryotes symbiotically merged together to form eukaryotes (17:57:59) laudablepuss: mitochondria were once prokaryotes living on their own (17:58:10) coworker:: but they are still unique (17:58:13) laudablepuss: The organelles of eukaryotes were all once prokaryote organisms (17:58:17) coworker:: that is speculation (17:58:39) laudablepuss: "speculation" belittles the evidence and work done in this field (17:59:06) coworker:: we can discuss tomorrow (17:59:08) laudablepuss: Okay (17:59:16) laudablepuss: no worries (17:59:27) coworker:: i r not running skaaarrrd :( |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
