Tämä on lainaus viestistä, jonka näin toisella nettifoorumilla. Alkuperäisen viestin nimimerkiltä Dr Adequate ja keskustelun voi tarkistaa tästä linkistä:
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=16860&mpp=15&p=3
Tämä analogia kuvaa mielestäni aika hyvin erästä kreationismin perusolettamusta, mikro- ja makroevoluution eroa:
"As walkists admit (such as the notoriously pro-walkist Wikipedia): "In humans and other bipeds, walking is generally distinguished from running in that only one foot at a time leaves contact with the ground and there is a period of double-support."
This means that walking requires leaving the right foot fixed in one place. Because I am not very bright, I shall now insist that this means that walking requires the right foot must be fixed in one place all the time. This means that someone walking cannot move from the spot, but can only turn around in circles.
On this principle, I shall assert that micro-walking (for example to the shops and back) is perfectly possible, even though this flatly contradicts what I've just said. I'm not big on logical consistency. However, macro-walking, for example hiking the Appalachian trail, is clearly impossible, because you could not do that by merely revolving on the spot, which as I've explained is all a person can ever do when walking.
Now, I know that some of you will point out that walking also involves moving the right foot, and that micro-walking, the existence of which I admit, definitely involves moving the right foot and indeed allows one to travel from place to place. How do I know that you will say that? Because it's what you said last time I raised this damnfool argument, and the time before that.
However, I'm sure I can ignore these obvious facts for the rest of this thread, and also for the duration of the other thread I'll start in another couple of months to say exactly the same thing. Instead I shall repeatedly assert that the process of walking requires the right foot to remain stationary, focusing obsessively on this one aspect of the process of walking and ignoring everything else about it, as though this somehow proved my point.
What I lack in intelligence, I make up for in the tenacity with which I can maintain an argument the deep unfathomable stupidity of which is completely obvious to every single person I try it out on."
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=16860&mpp=15&p=3
Tämä analogia kuvaa mielestäni aika hyvin erästä kreationismin perusolettamusta, mikro- ja makroevoluution eroa:
"As walkists admit (such as the notoriously pro-walkist Wikipedia): "In humans and other bipeds, walking is generally distinguished from running in that only one foot at a time leaves contact with the ground and there is a period of double-support."
This means that walking requires leaving the right foot fixed in one place. Because I am not very bright, I shall now insist that this means that walking requires the right foot must be fixed in one place all the time. This means that someone walking cannot move from the spot, but can only turn around in circles.
On this principle, I shall assert that micro-walking (for example to the shops and back) is perfectly possible, even though this flatly contradicts what I've just said. I'm not big on logical consistency. However, macro-walking, for example hiking the Appalachian trail, is clearly impossible, because you could not do that by merely revolving on the spot, which as I've explained is all a person can ever do when walking.
Now, I know that some of you will point out that walking also involves moving the right foot, and that micro-walking, the existence of which I admit, definitely involves moving the right foot and indeed allows one to travel from place to place. How do I know that you will say that? Because it's what you said last time I raised this damnfool argument, and the time before that.
However, I'm sure I can ignore these obvious facts for the rest of this thread, and also for the duration of the other thread I'll start in another couple of months to say exactly the same thing. Instead I shall repeatedly assert that the process of walking requires the right foot to remain stationary, focusing obsessively on this one aspect of the process of walking and ignoring everything else about it, as though this somehow proved my point.
What I lack in intelligence, I make up for in the tenacity with which I can maintain an argument the deep unfathomable stupidity of which is completely obvious to every single person I try it out on."
Vastaukset 2
Vanhimmat
Näkyvimmät mikrokävelijät ovat peräpään ongelmista kärsivät homosipsuttelijat.
Mäkispiispa iloitsee vihkiessään noita auttamisen sijasta avioon.
Eli kun kirkolle muodostui ongelmaksi se kun se meni omaksumaan evoluutioteorian ja sen myötä kansan moraalitaso laski ja myös kirkon oman väen moraalitaso laski tuonne mäkisriekkistasolle ja sai siitä palkaksi homotusvallankumouksen riesakseen niin se huomasi ettei paluuta asioiden oikaisemiseksi enää ollut, minkä se huomasi kun se ensin yritti vähän rimpuilla homoliittoja vastaan, ja niin se lopulta antoi totaalisesti periksi ja lähti lopullisesti avaralle tielle.
Niin että tervemenoa vaan helvetiiiin riekkismäkiset opetuslapsineen.
Joo, riekkismäkisläiset ovan henkisiä mikroälykävelijöitä.
En oikein ymmärrä että mikää virkaa on kirkolla joka on kun kelpaamatonta hapanta maitoa.