Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> >   Regardless of what is the truth, that just seems to be mocking for the
> > sake of mocking. "Hahahaa! Look at all those idiots!"
> >   Is that any better than the idiots?
> > 
> You didn't do more than read the article and look at a few pictures 
> right? To be clear, the author is a biologist, so he knows how bloody 
> silly this shit is.

  That doesn't make my statement above any less true.

  The article and the photo series was nothing more than mocking for the
sake of mocking. "Have a look at these photos and have a good laugh."
There was no other point.

> Then there is 
> the, "Evolution is false, but well, there probably where only a small 
> number of animals on the ship, so everything 'evolved' from those 
> 'kinds' into all the billions of species we see now..." Again, which $@#
> $@# one is it?

  Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, that's one of the things
which always make me laugh. Anti-christian atheists always consider so-called
microevolution (eg. wolves and dogs having a common ancestor species) to be
the same thing as macroevolution (everything on Earth evolved from one
single living cell). Accepting the former but doubting the latter is
considered contradictory.
  Regardless of what is the truth, that logic is flawed.

  Anyways, your overly long argumentation is pointless. I was not defending
anything. I was simply saying that the purpose of that photo gallery was
nothing more than mocking for the sake of mocking, with no other point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message