Where is Your DARWIN Now?


Because Darwin is as God to liberals, yet they indulge in all sorts of species-self-extinction foolishness.

Where is Your Darwin Now? Gay

Where is Your Darwin Now? Lesbian

See Heredity Chart: Evolutionary Dead-End of Pure Homosexual Preference.

Where is Your Darwin Now? Abortion

See Pictures of Aborted Fetuses – They Look Human, They ARE Human and posts on abortion.

Where is Your Darwin Now? Abortion

See Liberal Definition of A ‘Person’ and Guess which one is NOT protected?.

——————————

Kudos to Moonbattery for linkage.

Good stuff… The liberals just love me!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

24 Responses to “Where is Your DARWIN Now?”

  1. nanc Says:

    absotively brilliant!

  2. hoosierarmymom Says:

    Right on Scott!!!! Good one.

  3. Samuel Skinner Says:

    Actually, anyone who isn’t donating to sperm banks religiously is engaging in counter productive behavior.

    That, and poor people are having kids at a higher rate than rich people- there is a reason we don’t use evolutionary fitness to tell us what to do.

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    The religious texts warn us of just such a doomsday scenario… In the Holy Book of Idiocracy and the Infallible Tome of The Marching Morons.

  5. Samuel Skinner Says:

    You are just feeling bitter because the Muslims banned yoga.

    On a serious note, once we get genetic engineering up and running, we essentially short circuit evolution for human beings.

  6. simon thong Says:

    They haven’t been able to ban yoga yet, coz the Sultans of various states want their say. As Protectors of the Faith in each state, they expect to be consulted before any fatwa is issued. Are you into yoga, S.S.?

  7. Scott Thong Says:

    We already are, what with totally un-Natural Selection behaviours as protecting the weak and allowing the genetically unfit to thrive and reproduce. Darn those religionists and their non-Darwinian morals, darn them I say!

  8. betterthangod Says:

    Darwin isn’t anyone’s god. No one prays to him or worships him. Darwin was merely a scientist with a theory which 150 years of research has proven mostly accurate and has since added to and improved upon. Atheist and religious scientists overwhelmingly accept his work as true as it is evidence based and is confirmed repeatedly.
    Darwin has nothing to do with homosexuality or abortion and for you to attempt to link them only demonstrates that you have no interest in truth, only in deception.
    Only a fool would attempt to bring Darwin into an argument about morals as that was not his field of study. It’s almost as silly as claiming religion is the basis for morals.
    Attacking Darwin and his work is not an attack on atheism, it is simply a demonstration that you simply don’t understand science.

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    Lighten up, dude! This mockery is actually inspired by those ‘Where is your God now?’ shirts with a raptor head in place of Jesus’.

    Only a fool would attempt to bring Darwin into an argument about morals, or perhaps just someone fooling around!

  10. betterthangod Says:

    Sorry. looked like more braindead fundamentalist nonsense.

  11. Scott Thong Says:

    lololol

    Not to say that it isn’t, dude!

  12. confusedbystupidity Says:

    I’m not sure why you want to stop evolution? Humans are trying so hard to not evolve into something better adapted to our environment. We create our own environment instead. And that is why I am confused as to why so many people say evolution doesn’t exist when in reality, it is because we are attempting to stop a natural process.

    Also, I don’t understand why you somehow believe that homosexuality is related to Darwin’s research at all. It isn’t. The environment that a species is in will adapt to fit better within it. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is gay. I think if you are actually a scientist like it says on this blog, then you are probably a bad one if this is what you are thinking.

    It’s funny how many people deny evolution, but there is something that is starting to show which is how humans are starting to use their thumbs more for daily functions such as ringing a doorbell. This is an adaptation to texting. It is quite interesting to learn things rather than to be closed minded with the Bible over your eyes. There are other books and other sources of information in the world that are good to look at every once in a while.

    Plus your comment about Elton John and the Circle of Life. I’m sorry, but are you brain damaged?? Yes he’s gay, and guess what? The circle of life even includes things that aren’t living! WOAH!!! So if you honestly think that him being gay has ANYTHING to do with the Circle of Life, then you need to be institutionalized, or at least you should be forced to finish grade school.

    Also, abortion isn’t as horrible as everyone says it is. Now don’t get me wrong, murder is bad, and it’s horrible to think about killing a child. But if you sit down and think about WHY a woman would get an abortion, then it makes sense and is better for the child. What if a woman is not in a financially stable place in life and gets raped. She ends up pregnant, does she keep the baby and struggle through life trying to feed both her and the child that is a constant reminder of when she was raped? Or does she get an abortion and maybe some day get married, get a better job and have the time and money to take care of a child. If you think about the outcome for both of these situations, yes it is sad, but what would be better for the child? Suffering their entire life because their mother can barely feed them, and because the child is a source of sadness for the mother (Trust me, rape is one of the most painful experiences anyone could have and it stays with you forever and thank God I didn’t get pregnant, because both the decisions of an abortion or raising a child at age 17 sound horrible, but I digress). If people didn’t get abortions, then the world would be far more overpopulated than it is now, which means less jobs, less houses, decreased sanitation, more environmental destruction (and PLEASE don’t tell me you don’t care about the environment, because if you breath, eat or drink then you are a part of the environment).

    Now for the which one is protected picture. You do realize that humans are overpopulated and that chimpanzees are endangered? Endangered species get protected more than overpopulated ones.

    If you look at this image:

    You will see that humans and monkeys look almost identical in the womb. The biggest difference is that humans never fully develop a tail, but it is still there.

  13. Simon Thong Says:

    You are confused alright but by your own…..

    1. I see no posting by the blog writer that wants to stop evolution. You could have clicked on other posts and discover that for yourself.
    2. Go and read more, before you become more bitter.

    It has been said that a little knowledge is dangerous. In your case, a little reading is confusing.

  14. Zack T Says:

    confusedbystupidity,

    based on the line of Evolution thinking (living creatures evolve to become better and better, since the first microscopic single-celled organism from long long ago)… why have we evolved into male-female? What’s the benefit of evolving male and female? What environment would require the need of male and female? Why couldn’t all creatures remain asexual?

    Since we’re on that topic… why are there no living, moving creatures (minus microscopic ones) that are asexual? Reptiles, amphibians, insects, mammals, fish, birds… none are asexual.

    Then next, I want to ask your opinion or thoughts on what’s the evolutionary benefit of being homosexual? If homosexual brings ANY sort of benefit, then why evolve from asexuality in the first place?
    If one is homosexual, can’t he or she evolve into the other gender instead? If not, why not?
    And plus, what does homosexuality have to do with adapting to the environment? What environment constitutes a better advantage for being the opposite gender than your current gender?

    No one is trying to stop evolution here. We here are those who don’t believe the THEORY of evolution… So there’s no stopping something that we don’t believe.
    the theory of evolution is just that… a THEORY. Not provable.

    If you disagree, please provide your proofs/evidences. Most likely, we’ll be able to provide you an alternative understanding; and most of the time, a better and more scientific alternative.

  15. Scott Thong Says:

    Also, I don’t understand why you somehow believe that homosexuality is related to Darwin’s research at all. It isn’t. The environment that a species is in will adapt to fit better within it. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is gay. I think if you are actually a scientist like it says on this blog, then you are probably a bad one if this is what you are thinking. – confusedbystupidity

    Let me put it to you as straightforward as I can:

    1) Darwin’s theory runs on the fittest individuals having offspring and passing on the fit genes,
    2) Homosexuality = no offspring,
    3) Therefore is homosexuality is 100% genetically determined, it would have killed off its genes.

    Ergo, homosexuality is unlikely to be 100% genetically determined.

    It’s funny how many people deny evolution, but there is something that is starting to show which is how humans are starting to use their thumbs more for daily functions such as ringing a doorbell. This is an adaptation to texting. It is quite interesting to learn things rather than to be closed minded with the Bible over your eyes. There are other books and other sources of information in the world that are good to look at every once in a while.

    Didn’t you just claim in the start of your comment that human ingenuity had short-circuited evolution? Phone texting was specifically designed by humans to suit human thumbs, not the other way around!

    And where in my post did you get the idea that I’m bringing Christianity in as an argument?

    Plus your comment about Elton John and the Circle of Life. I’m sorry, but are you brain damaged?? Yes he’s gay, and guess what? The circle of life even includes things that aren’t living! WOAH!!! So if you honestly think that him being gay has ANYTHING to do with the Circle of Life, then you need to be institutionalized, or at least you should be forced to finish grade school.

    …Apparently humour is an alien concept to you. Perhaps another few generations to evolve it?

    What if a woman is not in a financially stable place in life and gets raped. She ends up pregnant, does she keep the baby and struggle through life trying to feed both her and the child that is a constant reminder of when she was raped?

    Let me put it in point form the shortfalls in your argument.

    First, you are using an almost absolutely worst-case scenario. The only way it could conceivably be more extreme is if the baby has mutiple genetic defects and also threatened the life of the mother.

    Second, the vastly overwhelming majority of abortions are not due to rape or incest or life-threatening or even genetic defects. Plain and simple, almost all are done for convenience. They couldn’t be bothered to use a condom, so now they have an abortion because they don’t want to bear the responsibility of raising a child.

    Third, the majority of those against abortion do not call for a 100% ban. We just want to restrict abortions to extreme cases (like the rape one you mention), so that millions of babies will no longer be killed just for convenience.

    If people didn’t get abortions, then the world would be far more overpopulated than it is now, which means less jobs, less houses, decreased sanitation, more environmental destruction (and PLEASE don’t tell me you don’t care about the environment, because if you breath, eat or drink then you are a part of the environment).

    And what couldn’t plain old contraception achieve with that regard? Abortion is an extreme solution to that problem. It sounds like a lame excuse to permit abortions of personal convenience to me.

    Now for the which one is protected picture. You do realize that humans are overpopulated and that chimpanzees are endangered? Endangered species get protected more than overpopulated ones.

    You do realize that humans are humans, and chimpanzees are animals?

  16. simonthongwh Says:

    APE TO MAN: LUCY, AUSTRALOPETHICUS AFARENSIS (or FROM MAN TO APE)

  17. James Says:

    It is already possible for eggs to be created from the genetic makeup of a man, and for sperm to be created from the genetic makeup of a woman – i.e. it is possible for same-sex couples to have children that are the offspring of both parents.

    so…where is your god now?

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

    The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”

    God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this, let’s say we have a man making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “OK, great!”

    But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”

    The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

    God just looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!

    http://www.getyourowndirt.com/

  19. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Darwin monkeyed many scientists because those scientists were not productive enough to make ‘counter research’ to prove Darwin wrong..hehehe..

  20. Ron Says:

    Transcript:

    Look, I know people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher — God bless him — wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said it all took 6,000 years. It just didn’t. And you go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating, you’ve got all these things and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas.

    […]

    They’re out there. And so, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try to cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible, that’s Bishop Ussher.

    And so, if you fight revealed science, you’re going to lose your children, and I believe in telling ’em the way it was.

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    Better tell Obama’s daughters then.

    But he might take it as a relief, after all, children are a punishment to him.

    Speaking of Obama, what exactly would Darwin think of the massive victory for socialist redistribution from the hardworking and successful to the less productive and capable… You know, the exact opposite of survival of the fittest and the best genes win?

  22. Ron Says:

    It’s kind of on par with discovering that there’s no Santa, or Easter Bunny or tooth fairy. I’m sure his daughters are now old enough to handle the news without problem.

    But I’m not really sure what unplanned pregnancies and fiscal policies have to do with Darwin or evolution (a scientific theory dealing with genetic changes in species over time). It’s a complete non sequitur, and moreover, the failure in this line of reasoning has already been pointed out to you several times in other threads.

    I also take issue with the one-sided manner in which you’ve framed the question of wealth redistribution. When corporations willfully pollute the environment and pass the cleanup costs on to others, could that not also be considered an unfair redistribution of wealth? Or what about corporate raiders (like Mitt Romney) who rip apart perfectly healthy companies to temporarily maximize shareholder profits? Doesn’t forcing thousands of previously employed workers onto taxpayer assistance constitute an unfair redistribution of wealth?

  23. Scott Thong Says:

    The savings the corporation makes by not implementing proper pollution controls ought to be passed down to consumers. Redistribution works both ways.

    Anyway, corporations doing so can be fined. In fact, the EPA would like to fine them for nearly undetectable levels of pollution. Guess who they’ll pass the additional costs to? Redistribution!

    Pretty sure Bain patched up at least as many companies as they ripped apart. Speaking of which, things sure worked out well when the unions stymied the efforts of ‘corporate raiders’ to prop up Hostess eh?

  24. Scott Thong Says:

    But wait.

    When we talk about how a corporation might be ‘redistributing’ or ‘stealing’ or ‘taking’ wealth from the populace to do with it whatever it wants, we are outraged.

    But not when government does it?

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


%d bloggers like this: