You are easily amused by your own ignorance.

Actually, I'm amused by your worship of Dawkins.

Did you think this was just idle speculation by Dawkins?

Actually, evolutionary theory adopts large amounts of narrative due to difficulties of obtaining conclusive empirical evidence and the inability to both test evolutionary hypothesis and falsify chosen hypothesis. I think it's laughable that cretins like yourself are easily duped by orators like Dawkins who dress theory up as fact.
It's not yet an established FACT that your great great great great great grandma was once a wet egg-laying fish, you moron.

I thought you weren't a creationist? Does your anti-science stupidity know no bounds?

What from my post, which was simply a comment I made about how funny I thought one of the responses was made you believe I am a Creationist? It seems to me that you're just looking for a fight with one.

You should try reading a book about evolution.

You should try shutting the fuck up more often. You're an embarrassment to your empty souls club.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:OMG! This one was the best reply to the article. It made me laugh my ass off!. . .

How old are you, Ant? I'm guessing about 12.

I'm guessing you're bored, that's why you're playing the part of the Funny Police today.

Lighten up, grandpa.

The reply I posted was funny to me. I enjoyed reading it. Do you have a problem with that specifically, or is there something else you'd like to say?
Do you wish to censor what I think is funny here on BT?

Actually, the reply does pose some interesting points. That's if you don't turn a blind eye to it, of course.

duplicate post

Nature can be awe inspiring and mysterious but not cognitive. I rest my case."

I still say that is some funny stuff!

I rest my case

I'm sorry, guys. I can't stop laughing at that.

ant wrote: You should try shutting the fuck up more often. You're an embarrassment to your empty souls club.

You've backed yourself into a corner, so it's understandable that you're upset.

So let's be clear -- are you disagreeing that Dawkins knows exactly what your 185 millionth ancestor looked like, in which case you missed the point of the thought experiment, or do you disagree with the fact that your line of ancestors make up a gradual change into these earlier species?

If you disagree with the latter, then I would assume you reject evolution, hence being a creationist.

Do you have an actual response, or are you just going to spew a response to a strawman argument about how Dawkins and other scientists don't know everything.

ant wrote:

geo wrote:

ant wrote:OMG! This one was the best reply to the article. It made me laugh my ass off!. . .

How old are you, Ant? I'm guessing about 12.

I'm guessing you're bored, that's why you're playing the part of the Funny Police today.

Lighten up, grandpa.

The reply I posted was funny to me. I enjoyed reading it. Do you have a problem with that specifically, or is there something else you'd like to say?
Do you wish to censor what I think is funny here on BT?

Actually, the reply does pose some interesting points. That's if you don't turn a blind eye to it, of course.

I have a problem with your tone in general. As usual, you have no point except that something is so funny that you're LOLing all over the place. But look around, no one else is laughing.

If you have an original thought or argument, please say it. Or is it your only intention to make a lot of noise? You come across as a gibbering moron.

I was actually serious when I asked your age. I'm very curious.

So let's be clear -- are you disagreeing that Dawkins knows exactly what your 185 millionth ancestor looked like, in which case you missed the point of the thought experiment,

Are you drunk on your stupidity again?

I found it amusing, almost as much as I find you amusing, that Dawkins tries to slip in the backdoor an evolutionary trail that leads directly to a fish, and pawn it as FACT, you atheist clown. We aren't near establishing as fact an evolutionary snap shot that determines conclusively which direction the homo sapien fossil trail regresses to.
Can you prove me wrong with evidence? If so, post it here, please.

If you disagree with the latter, then I would assume you reject evolution, hence being a creationist.

I can question and be skeptical of the latter as you say without being a creationist. You're setting up a false choice, moron.

Do you have an actual response, or are you just going to spew a response to a strawman argument about how Dawkins and other scientists don't know everything.

I think I'll respond the same way that some atheists do when there's nothing more to say - fuck off.

I hope I can get away with it the same way yorky did.
But we have double standards around here.

ant wrote:

I rest my case

I'm sorry, guys. I can't stop laughing at that.

Who are you quoting?

I have a problem with your tone in general.

You need to call people out that are on your side of the fence as well, Geo. I have a problem with it as well.
If you're not going to, you can whine all you want.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:

I rest my case

I'm sorry, guys. I can't stop laughing at that.

Who are you quoting?

It was one of the replies from the link Dexter provided.
I thought it was funny.

Geezz, man.

I've got to leave the echo chamber now.
Sorry I found it funny.