I thought this was cute for you evolutionists (salvation, agnostic, bible)

[KatieGal]

It's actually kind of sad, pathetic really, that I need to point out that evolution is pretty much considered a fact. I feel like making up a cartoon lampooning as absurd the notion the earth is somehow not flat, and then labeling it, I thought this was cute, for you round earth people.

[Eusebius]

KatieGal, it is also like making a cartoon of puppets talking to each other and laughing as they say: People actually believe we are controlled by a Higher Being. I mean, that is just soooo absurd! as they laugh and laugh and laugh. And put that cartoon on a message board of people who believe in free will. But it is cute.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Thanks,that's nice. At least it's a chuckle about how Creationists misunderstand the evolution argument.

It's actually hilarious irony as well, being as all snowflakes do not come to existence by natural selection but through ice fairies designing them.

[KatieGal]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

KatieGal, it is also like making a cartoon of puppets talking to each other and laughing as they say: People actually believe we are controlled by a Higher Being. I mean, that is just soooo absurd! as they laugh and laugh and laugh. And put that cartoon on a message board of people who believe in free will. But it is cute.

It is cute. Another take on it in a less humorous manner would be to wonder; what the are the chances of two snowmen being created by natural, non-intelligent forces somewhere in the universe given billions of years, on theoretically billions of planets?

[Wild Colonial Girl]

Originally Posted by Vizio

How so? That's what evolution is--you believe highly complex organisms evolved from simple ones. Of course, it also brings up the question of abiogenesis, a separate, but equally silly notion....not to mention the whole question of how the snow came to exist in the first place.

*sigh* you made his point for him, and introduced the perfect analogy. Snowflakes are hexagonal because the underlying chemistry makes them tend to just fall into that conformation, just like the underlying chemistry of atoms means they like to fall into the conformation of nucleic acids and amino acids and sugars, and fats into membranes.

If snowmen had babies they'd have evolved.

If anyone other than the OP is reading and wants to understand biology, chew on this "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.". Every word in that sentence is required, and it fully explains itself.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Wild Colonial Girl

*sigh* you made his point for him, and introduced the perfect analogy. Snowflakes are hexagonal because the underlying chemistry makes them tend to just fall into that conformation, just like the underlying chemistry of atoms means they like to fall into the conformation of nucleic acids and amino acids and sugars, and fats into membranes.

If snowmen had babies they'd have evolved.

If anyone other than the OP is reading and wants to understand biology, chew on this "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.". Every word in that sentence is required, and it fully explains itself.

It's posts like this...in the thread of a teasing "cute cartoon"...that prompts me to hip you people to something: Take the hook out of your cheeks, and see if someone will pull a small piece of off those snowmen to make a ice-pack for the lump on your heads you got after Mr. Eusebius Pavlov bopped the lot of you with his big Poe Stick! HaHa!!

Thanx Eusebius...I needed a laugh in this blizzard! Good job setting it up.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Vizio

How so? That's what evolution is--you believe highly complex organisms evolved from simple ones. Of course, it also brings up the question of abiogenesis, a separate, but equally silly notion....not to mention the whole question of how the snow came to exist in the first place.

Oh, but the evolutionists will conveniently ignore that, and claim that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

If that is so, then why are they here on the Religion forum, when they could be posting in the Science or Politics forum?

[Griffis]

"Evolutionists?"

That's a good one. It's like being called "The sun-is-going-to-come-up-tomorrow believers" or "Water-is-wet people."

[MrBlueSky_]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

Cute.

And of course, entirely validates Genesis while skewering evolution.

Hmm, I thought it validated the Navajo creation myth. Oh well...

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Vizio

How so? That's what evolution is--you believe highly complex organisms evolved from simple ones. Of course, it also brings up the question of abiogenesis, a separate, but equally silly notion....not to mention the whole question of how the snow came to exist in the first place.

Originally Posted by Fillmont

You're not asking the big questions! Snow had to come from somewhere! And where did this snow come from? Water? And who gave us water? God! See, you have to question everything. And where did God come from? No, don't answer that. No more need to ask anything.

Originally Posted by Harrier

Oh, but the evolutionists will conveniently ignore that, and claim that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

If that is so, then why are they here on the Religion forum, when they could be posting in the Science or Politics forum?

Because you proven-thoughtless Christians (which is NOT science, so doesn't belong in a Science forum, nor in a Science classroom, but rather in a humorous sub-forum on ancient bronze-age witch-based tripe) continue to 1) get it entirely wrong, but insist your religion proves it to be right, and 2) that you got here by different means than any of us real organisms, by Godly hand-wavery, out of literally nothing. But as stated above, you always stop the big questions just short of the really sticky & problematic answers [for you at any rate...]. How Conveneint!

I do indeed tire of the endless litany of abject lunacy that prevails whenever some nutball Creationist 1) denies our ancient chronology, and/or 2) the obvious DNA lineage evidence we now have undeniable evidence for (as in: you intransigentialistás really should stop proudly hanging on to your circa-1957 science education levels, try to read just a few simple biology bits and pieces, and perhaps move it on up a bit!), and 3) constantly pulls up the "747 junkyard" analogy, or this snowman one, which falls into the same cone-headed "dunsist" banality-on-parade category...

http://www.****/dunce-cap-...umb7080511.jpg

Oh look! An intransigent Christian sucking on his education!

Q: if you really claim to actually understand proper Evolutionary theory ('cause if you don't, then how on earth can you honestly debate a topic you don't have a clue on?), then YOU ess-plain to us why your errant analogy sucks. Your responses will be telling, if you are capable of being honest.

Which, I'll wager, you are not, since to be so would scare the living DNA right out of you.

So.. shall I explain it to you yet again? After all, you ignored, denied or couldn't begin to comprehend it the last few times, so why would this time be any different?

(This would be akin to me insisting, day after week after month after year after decade... and so on...that Jesus' twin brother was gay, but could also "go" with goats.!) But then, just like your illiterate debating process, I'd purposefully ignore those protestations and corrections (because actually, His twin brother was a transexual...) and then dully bring up the same tired silliness once more, and then again, and so on.

Talk about Registered Repeat Banality!

But OK: here's a broad hint, as noted by a poster above; First-off, and for the umpteenth time, Evolution obviously (1) has nothing to do with abiogenesis, for "starters" [pun intended].

Rather, 2) by definition, it requires that the living DNA- and RNA-based organism already lives, and 3) that the evolving organism possesses the ability to self-replicate, carrying it's ongoing mutations through the literal quintrillions of reproductive events, and over literally millions of years, in order to allow it all time to "age with grace".

And 4) then it has to test out all those multi-billions of variants, both good and bad, against the environmental niches and opportunities, and then...

5) It will replicate, but only the positive genotypical )and this phenotypical) changes. [because duhhh..

6) the "bad" ones are left to live, or die, obviously, with their own bad functionality! [Get it? No? Not yet? <sigh>]

Undt zo.. I'll ask you devoted intransigentialistás yet again: exactly which part of this simple process don't you understand? (Do tell us! Because only then, when you admit to your educational mis-directions, can we hope to help you out, if we know which part you are so out of touch on.)

And so we'll assure that your über-dumb but oft-repeated commentary will not not embarrassingly (for you...) occur again!)

I'm just curious you understand. But then, instead, being incapable of admitting when and where you are entirely wrong in an honest debate, I fully expect you to re-post your brainless billiousness and yowl again how Evolution could not have generated us perfect beings from some chance biochemical combinations, via some deep oceanic vent hole chemistry, or that a 747, actually functionally unable to self-replciate or mutate it's designs and then auto-test itself out, could possibly have evolved!

The banalisty is endless, huh?