Blogs 4 Brownback

July 9, 2007

How Darwinists Think Their Grandparents Met

Filed under: Democratic Idiocy,Faith,Family,Science,YouTube — Sisyphus @ 11:40 pm


This is what the secularists want your children to learn in school. This is how they hope to explain our random, coincidental and Satanically-induced genetic similarities. The Darwinist pseudoscience embraces the notion of apes frolicking in the bushes with maidens. Scrape away the techno-savvy gibberish encasing its perversions, and this is its essence.

Actually, this movie is more accurate than Darwinist beliefs. At least it shows dinosaurs interacting with humans, as they surely did before the Flood. Bravo, Peter Jackson!

21 Comments »

  1. King Kong, eh? Great movie. Totally bogus. An ape that size would have his skeleton collapse under its own weight. Not to mention that T-Rexes 65 million years after their supposed extinction would look nothing like the T-Rex we know today, thanks to evolution and changes within its species.

    You guys just love to make stuff up to stir the pot, eh? Secularists want to teach your kids that apes had sex with people, eh? Give me ONE proposal from any democrat at all that even suggests that. Oh, what? You can’t? What’s that? You made up the little part about “Darwinists” wanting us to think apes had sex with chicks?? You don’t say!

    Most people, however, are smarter than you, and can differentiate reality from a pretty good movie.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 10, 2007 @ 3:30 am | Reply

  2. Well, to be fair, those were V-Rexes. Vastatosaurus Rex, a completely fictional dinosaur. As for the people have sex with monkeys bit, that’s one of the running gags that keeps me relatively sure this is a parody site. Nobody actually thinks that that’s what evolution means.

    Comment by Salmo — July 10, 2007 @ 3:51 am | Reply

  3. “King Kong, eh? Great movie. Totally bogus. An ape that size would have his skeleton collapse under its own weight.”

    Don’t talk about your grandpa that way, moonbat!

    “Not to mention that T-Rexes 65 million years after their supposed extinction would look nothing like the T-Rex we know today, thanks to evolution and changes within its species.”

    Considering how the world is only 6000 years old, this is quite a feat. How exactly did these tyrannosaurs travel through time? Did they do so for 65 million years in a row?

    “You guys just love to make stuff up to stir the pot, eh?”

    No.

    “Secularists want to teach your kids that apes had sex with people, eh? Give me ONE proposal from any democrat at all that even suggests that. Oh, what? You can’t? What’s that? You made up the little part about “Darwinists” wanting us to think apes had sex with chicks?? You don’t say!”

    I’m not sure if Darwin was a Democrat. He was the British equivalent, I guess back then it was the Whigs. But yes, this is the crux of the Darwinist position, right here. I’m not an idiot, I know the movie is fiction. Funny hoe you claim to know that as well, yet you fall for the evolutionist claims- which are every bit as absurd as the notion of Skull Island.

    We do agree on one point, though- this was a pretty good movie.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 10, 2007 @ 4:42 am | Reply

  4. “Well, to be fair, those were V-Rexes. Vastatosaurus Rex, a completely fictional dinosaur. As for the people have sex with monkeys bit, that’s one of the running gags that keeps me relatively sure this is a parody site. Nobody actually thinks that that’s what evolution means.”

    How can you be descended from them if your ancestors didn’t fornicate with them? At least be honest about what your pseudoscientific theory implies!

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 10, 2007 @ 4:44 am | Reply

  5. Hahaha, once again, you make my day, Sisy!

    Comment by Skeptic — July 10, 2007 @ 7:32 am | Reply

  6. You have to admit the big monkey was a better option than the dinosaurs.

    Comment by Bob Baffet — July 10, 2007 @ 8:07 am | Reply

  7. Like I have said before there is no way that God made a human being from any monkey. Of course there are a whole lot of people who look and act like monkies, but I steer clear of their neighborhoods so I never see them.

    Comment by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett — July 10, 2007 @ 8:15 am | Reply

  8. “You have to admit the big monkey was a better option than the dinosaurs.”

    Well, in the context of the movie, yes. It is better to associate with monkeys than to be devoured by legged serpents. However, given the sin of fornication with beasts would keep my soul from salvation, I would prefer to be eaten than to consort with the primate.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 10, 2007 @ 8:40 am | Reply

  9. “How can you be descended from them if your ancestors didn’t fornicate with them? At least be honest about what your pseudoscientific theory implies!”

    You are confused about the word ‘descent’. What happened was millions of years ago there was a thing like an ape. It was not an ape, not a human, not a rat. It was what we now call Sahelanthropus. Now, some of them lived in the trees and were less intelligent, and some lived on the ground and were more intelligent. Over thousands of years, the ground-dwellers had adapted into a body more suitable for living on the ground, and the Sahelanthropus race was no more, the ground-dwellers having evolved int Australopithecus, the tree-dwellers now being primitive apes. The Australopithecines learned tool use, and how to build homes and make fire. Thousands and thousands of years later, this lifestyle had caused their bodies to adapt into Homo Habilis. That was about two and a half million years ago. About 250,000 years ago, Habilis had evolved into Neanderthal, the typical ‘caveman’, like in the Far Side comics. About 150,000 years ago, the first Homo Sapiens had finally evolved, due to adaptive technology and migration to India, China, and Europe. About 10,000 years ago, agriculture was invented, and the nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes were able to settle down. Finally, about 6,500 years ago, civilization truly began in the Middle East.

    Comment by Salmo — July 10, 2007 @ 8:58 am | Reply

  10. An excellent truncation of human history. The people on this forum don’t seem to understand one thing: you don’t need to have sex with something to be descended from them, and neither do your relatives. That suggests that at some period, there were humans and there were monkeys, and the two interbred. That’s wrong and absurd, and nobody actually makes that claim.

    Nobody ever says that man came from apes. To suggest that there’s any tenet of evolution that says we came from apes is wrong. Flat wrong. What the theory of evolution states is that modern apes and man have a common ancestor. This is the crux of common descent.

    Oh, and the bit about seeing mocroevolution but never macroevolution is, again, false. Just recently biologists have classified a new type of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that was descended from a less robust species. The two populations are now distinctly different species, and therefore macroevolution has happened before our eyes. Ironically, though, we caused it by irresponsible use of antibiotics.

    How long can you fly in the face of the facts? We see these things happen. The theory is credible. Instead of hearing somebody say the fossil record is incomplete and then stealing their opinion, why don’t you look at the fossil record yourself? It is very much complete. To say otherwise without even knowing the answer shows pure ignorance.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 10, 2007 @ 9:26 am | Reply

  11. They’re going to claim that bacteria doesn’t count, and that Satan planted fossils to annoy them.

    Comment by Salmo — July 10, 2007 @ 9:39 am | Reply

  12. “You are confused about the word ‘descent’. What happened was millions of years ago there was a thing like an ape. It was not an ape, not a human, not a rat. It was what we now call Sahelanthropus. Now, some of them lived in the trees and were less intelligent, and some lived on the ground and were more intelligent. Over thousands of years, the ground-dwellers had adapted into a body more suitable for living on the ground, and the Sahelanthropus race was no more, the ground-dwellers having evolved int Australopithecus, the tree-dwellers now being primitive apes. The Australopithecines learned tool use, and how to build homes and make fire. Thousands and thousands of years later, this lifestyle had caused their bodies to adapt into Homo Habilis. That was about two and a half million years ago. About 250,000 years ago, Habilis had evolved into Neanderthal, the typical ‘caveman’, like in the Far Side comics. About 150,000 years ago, the first Homo Sapiens had finally evolved, due to adaptive technology and migration to India, China, and Europe. About 10,000 years ago, agriculture was invented, and the nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes were able to settle down. Finally, about 6,500 years ago, civilization truly began in the Middle East.”

    This is believable to you, yet you scoff at the Book of Genesis. (By the way, in your mythology, you and King Kong are kissing cousins at the very least.)

    “They’re going to claim that bacteria doesn’t count, and that Satan planted fossils to annoy them.”

    Bacteria’s irrelevant, and fossils are much more recent than the flawed radiocrabon dating would lead idiot scientists with worthless doctorates from ivory tower phrenology institutes would believe.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 10, 2007 @ 9:49 am | Reply

  13. “you don’t need to have sex with something to be descended from them, and neither do your relatives.”

    You’ve never been to certain parts of the southern US, have you?

    Comment by Skeptic — July 10, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  14. Radiacarbon dating? No, Sisyphus, once again you’re wrong. People don’t date ancient (millions of years) fossils by Carbon 14 dating. They use various methods of “ancient” dating, such as Faraday Cup dating, Uranium Lead radiometry, Potassium Argon dating, and Rubidium-Strontium dating, to name a few. And they all come up with the same numbers, hence the scientific consensus.

    And bacteria is NOT irrelevant. It has shown us that the very thing you said nobody has seen has, in fact, been seen and documented. Now your argument is completely wrong. Move on.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 10, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  15. “And they all come up with the same numbers, hence the scientific consensus.”

    Liars and fools all reach the same conclusion: the wrong one. All roads of sin lead to Hell, too. So what?

    “And bacteria is NOT irrelevant. It has shown us that the very thing you said nobody has seen has, in fact, been seen and documented. Now your argument is completely wrong. Move on.”

    I think you’re posting in the wrong thread here. Either that, or you’re having an argument with your imaginary friend. What exactly are you driving at, here?

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 10, 2007 @ 10:09 am | Reply

  16. You have said before that nobody, but NOBODY, has ever seen Macroevolution work, therefore you can’t prove it. However, now we have seen it. Therefore, there’s another anti-evolutionist tenet erased.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 10, 2007 @ 10:18 am | Reply

  17. “(By the way, in your mythology, you and King Kong are kissing cousins at the very least.)”

    No, in my life, King Kong is a good, but much too long, movie by a director I like.

    “This is believable to you, yet you scoff at the Book of Genesis.”

    Yeah, I guess you could say that I find adaptation observable in the fossil record believable, and a book that says a guy just made everything happen not so much. Particularly when the book contradicts what is plainly visible in the real world.

    Why is it so hard for you to accept that God made evolution happen?

    Comment by Salmo — July 10, 2007 @ 10:20 am | Reply

  18. Oh I’m sure they will eventually change their opinions so they end up preaching that evolution did happen, but was God’s will. They seem to change fundamental tenets of their belief at will, but never admit they were wrong in the first place.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 10, 2007 @ 10:37 am | Reply

  19. I always thought Laura Dern was pretty hot in Jurassic Park, but Naomi Watts ain’t bad.

    Just showing my age again.

    Comment by MikeM — July 10, 2007 @ 4:13 pm | Reply

  20. Your claim of darwinists saying that people had sex with apes is either a running gag or a mock. Either way, it´s complete bs. Seems like some here still rants about evolution without even knowing how it´s working.

    (And that grandpa stuff is even more retarded, given the fact that it takes dozens of generations for evolution to take place.)

    “Considering how the world is only 6000 years old, this is quite a feat. How exactly did these tyrannosaurs travel through time? Did they do so for 65 million years in a row?”

    Considering that the world has been proven a thousnad times over to be billions of years old and Genesis being nothing but a cute fairy-tale, it´s quite imaginable that the Dinosaurs have lived millions of years ago. Disprove carbon dating, then we can talk. (Evidence is needed to do so. The bible is no evidence.)

    “Like I have said before there is no way that God made a human being from any monkey. Of course there are a whole lot of people who look and act like monkies, but I steer clear of their neighborhoods so I never see them.”

    Honestly, just look into the mirror and then compare your DNA to that of a chimp. OOPS!

    “This is believable to you, yet you scoff at the Book of Genesis. (By the way, in your mythology, you and King Kong are kissing cousins at the very least.)”

    Book of Genesis? Ahh, you mean that little fairy-tale. Yeah, I know, it´s almost as entertaining as the movie, but still, meh.
    (And if “we” and King Kong were cousins:
    1. You´d be, too.
    2. About as much as democrats and republicans are cousins.)

    “Liars and fools all reach the same conclusion: the wrong one. All roads of sin lead to Hell, too. So what?”

    Possibility off all methods lying: Small.
    Possibillity of all methods bringing up the same lie: Non-existant.

    You eother have differrent false results otr all are showing one, and thus right result. OWNED!

    Comment by PG — July 11, 2007 @ 10:40 am | Reply

  21. Curse your islamofascist-commie-pinko-unamerican-treefrog logic, you moonbat!

    Comment by Skeptic — July 11, 2007 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

  22. You people are incredibly stupid. King Kong is a fictional movie! This is no way to argue against evolution! evolution is a valid theory, and you’ve sunk so low as to use a movie inaccuracy to try and attack it because you can’t find any actual substantial evidence against it. Shameful. Ignorant.

    Comment by nature — August 26, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: