Pretty much any religious argument and explanation. Most of the time I can't even tell if they're being serious [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law]
The Stupidest Thing You've Ever Heard
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Listening to Sarah Palin speak during the vice presidential debates and, her other interviews are pretty funny. Basically every time she opens her mouth I facepalm...
Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
Most stupid thing I've heard in recent history has to be from my dad.
He went to make "Four Bean Chili". Fair enough.
I came home from work to find that he forgot to buy meat for it, so whatever, he went vegetable chili. But he also forgot tomatoes. It's starting to sound less like chili.
Basically, it was 4 cans of different types of beans unwashed and unrinsed (with all that bean goo in the can), dumped into the pot, with celery, because thats the only vegetable he bought for it.
So he serves up this grey inedible slop, and after one bite I was like "Dad, sorry, this is horrible. I actually can't eat this. Did you even season it or anything?"
Him: "Yeah, I put parsley, and pepper and a bit of salt."
Me: "So no chili powder in the chili?"
Him (most stupid thing I've heard in a while): "Marc, come on, it's already chili, you don't need to add chili powder."
He went to make "Four Bean Chili". Fair enough.
I came home from work to find that he forgot to buy meat for it, so whatever, he went vegetable chili. But he also forgot tomatoes. It's starting to sound less like chili.
Basically, it was 4 cans of different types of beans unwashed and unrinsed (with all that bean goo in the can), dumped into the pot, with celery, because thats the only vegetable he bought for it.
So he serves up this grey inedible slop, and after one bite I was like "Dad, sorry, this is horrible. I actually can't eat this. Did you even season it or anything?"
Him: "Yeah, I put parsley, and pepper and a bit of salt."
Me: "So no chili powder in the chili?"
Him (most stupid thing I've heard in a while): "Marc, come on, it's already chili, you don't need to add chili powder."
Haha, I remember chewing through those books in an afternoon when I was a kid.twistedmic said:
"it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from" The Theory of Evolution doesn't address where life came from, it addresses the diversity of existing life. To misunderstand that is to demonstrate an utter ignorance of both the theory & of basic biology itself. 'Abiogenesis' is the name given to the hypothesis presented by Dr. Szostak (Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School & Distinguished Investigator in the Department of Molecular Biology at the Massachusetts General Hospital), who has successfully demonstrated a process where self-catalysing enzymes create replicating hydrocarbon polymer vesicles undergoing mutation.Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
"[...] has merit, as a theory and a theory alone." this demonstrates what can only be considered a tragic ignorance of the simplest scientific terminology. In a scientific context a 'theory' is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In common use the word 'theory' actually refers to a hypothesis, a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence. Other theories are the Theory of Gravity, of Electro Magnetism, Copernican Theory (sun at the centre of the solar system), Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Genetic Theory, Kinetic Theory, etc.
Evolution is documented in existing species from Italian wall lizards in Pod Mrcaru over the last few decades, the mosquito during the Blitz, to the peppered moth in England during the Industrial Revolution, & to numerous bacterial strains (e.g. Sphingomonas) around the world. Then there are transitional fossils like Proterogyrinus, as well as a wealth of genetic corroboration such as human Ch2 corresponding (even down to the join/splice) to Chs12 & 13 in chimps.
There is no peer-reviewed paper which contradicts Evolution.
The above-quoted text demonstrating ignorance of utterly basic science is my candidate for stupidest thing I've read or heard this week, possibly this month.
It may be true that the theory of evolution is flawed, but every other theory is even more flawed since they depend on either an omnipotent being (which there is no evidence for) or space aliens (which not only there is no evidence for, but FTL travel is, as far as anyone can tell, completely impossible.)Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
OT: To be fair, I was ignorant about a lot of pop culture because I never was allowed to watch most shows on TV, especially when I was little. As such, most of the shows my classmates talked about I had no clue about, including He-Man, Looney Tunes, and pretty much anything on Disney or the Cartoon Network. I think the crowning moment of my ignorance was when I asked a classmate something along the lines of "Who is Mickey Mouse? Because I read in a book that WWII soldiers distinguished spies among them by asking who Mickey Mouse's girlfriend was, but I don't know who that is.""
Junior year high school history class
Girl 1: "Are the American Revolution and the Civil War the same war?"
Me: "Really?"
Girl 1: *looks expectantly at me for an answer*
Girl 2: "Wait! Are the American Revolution and the Civil War the same war?"
Me: *facedesk*
Girl 1: "Are the American Revolution and the Civil War the same war?"
Me: "Really?"
Girl 1: *looks expectantly at me for an answer*
Girl 2: "Wait! Are the American Revolution and the Civil War the same war?"
Me: *facedesk*
You have proven nothing except natural selection is possible. Natural selection is the changes within a species, while evolution is the changing of a species entirely. I concur that gravity is a theory, that Copernicus had a theory, and all other theories you have mentioned. These all equally available for discussion and descent. THAT is the basis of science. Not saying that one theory is correct simply because there is no evidence against it. There is no supposition in fact. Fact must be fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and until that moment it is highly debatable. This is my qualm with evolution, there is NO debate. Everyone who believes in a theory outside of evolution is considered to be a lunatic, and that is a saddening blow to the credibility of science, and no better than the repressions committed by the ancient Catholic Church. In battling the enemy that is ignorance, you must be careful not to fall prey to the enemy of Arrogance, and the scientific community has not maintained that caution.catalyst8 said:"it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from" The Theory of Evolution doesn't address where life came from, it addresses the diversity of existing life. To misunderstand that is to demonstrate an utter ignorance of both the theory & of basic biology itself. 'Abiogenesis' is the name given to the hypothesis presented by Dr. Szostak (Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School & Distinguished Investigator in the Department of Molecular Biology at the Massachusetts General Hospital), who has successfully demonstrated a process where self-catalysing enzymes create replicating hydrocarbon polymer vesicles undergoing mutation.Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
"[...] has merit, as a theory and a theory alone." this demonstrates what can only be considered a tragic ignorance of the simplest scientific terminology. In a scientific context a 'theory' is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In common use the word 'theory' actually refers to a hypothesis, a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence. Other theories are the Theory of Gravity, of Electro Magnetism, Copernican Theory (sun at the centre of the solar system), Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Genetic Theory, Kinetic Theory, etc.
Evolution is documented in existing species from Italian wall lizards in Pod Mrcaru over the last few decades, the mosquito during the Blitz, to the peppered moth in England during the Industrial Revolution, & to numerous bacterial strains (e.g. Sphingomonas) around the world. Then there are transitional fossils like Proterogyrinus, as well as a wealth of genetic corroboration such as human Ch2 corresponding (even down to the join/splice) to Chs12 & 13 in chimps.
There is no peer-reviewed paper which contradicts Evolution.
The above-quoted text demonstrating ignorance of utterly basic science is my candidate for stupidest thing I've read or heard this week, possibly this month.
Edit: Also, can we attempt to maintain an air of civility here? We are both educated gentleman, and I will not fault you for your opinion or say your statements are the stupidest thing ever. Please show me that same respect. Let us communicate on an intellectual level without debasing ourselves with ad hominem attacks, eh?
catalyst8 said:"it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from" The Theory of Evolution doesn't address where life came from, it addresses the diversity of existing life. To misunderstand that is to demonstrate an utter ignorance of both the theory & of basic biology itself. 'Abiogenesis' is the name given to the hypothesis presented by Dr. Szostak (Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School & Distinguished Investigator in the Department of Molecular Biology at the Massachusetts General Hospital), who has successfully demonstrated a process where self-catalysing enzymes create replicating hydrocarbon polymer vesicles undergoing mutation.Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
"[...] has merit, as a theory and a theory alone." this demonstrates what can only be considered a tragic ignorance of the simplest scientific terminology. In a scientific context a 'theory' is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In common use the word 'theory' actually refers to a hypothesis, a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence. Other theories are the Theory of Gravity, of Electro Magnetism, Copernican Theory (sun at the centre of the solar system), Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Genetic Theory, Kinetic Theory, etc.
Evolution is documented in existing species from Italian wall lizards in Pod Mrcaru over the last few decades, the mosquito during the Blitz, to the peppered moth in England during the Industrial Revolution, & to numerous bacterial strains (e.g. Sphingomonas) around the world. Then there are transitional fossils like Proterogyrinus, as well as a wealth of genetic corroboration such as human Ch2 corresponding (even down to the join/splice) to Chs12 & 13 in chimps.
There is no peer-reviewed paper which contradicts Evolution.
The above-quoted text demonstrating ignorance of utterly basic science is my candidate for stupidest thing I've read or heard this week, possibly this month.
you sir...win...please take a bow
I agree that all other theories are flawed. However, I argue that to judge one theory more favorably, just because all other theories have similar flaws, is folly. The base supposition that life was created by an omnipotent being(which I wholeheartedly believe in), is not based in science, but in Faith, which I believe to be the proper venue for dealing with such intangibilities as the beginning, development, and over-all meaning of life.Chrono180 said:It may be true that the theory of evolution is flawed, but every other theory is even more flawed since they depend on either an omnipotent being (which there is no evidence for) or space aliens (which not only there is no evidence for, but FTL travel is, as far as anyone can tell, completely impossible.)Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
@Skyline14 & Chrono180
What are the flaws in the Theory of Evolution? As far as I'm aware it is far less flawed than say, Newton's law of universal gravitation. I'm not suggesting it is a complete model, I'm just curious as to what you consider to be Evolution's flaws.
Please enlighten me.
btw LOL at 4-bean chilli story
What are the flaws in the Theory of Evolution? As far as I'm aware it is far less flawed than say, Newton's law of universal gravitation. I'm not suggesting it is a complete model, I'm just curious as to what you consider to be Evolution's flaws.
Please enlighten me.
btw LOL at 4-bean chilli story
Please sir, we dance in dangerous territory here. I don't want to insight a flame war. Can we not communicate as adults? I do not fault you for your opinions. I simply state mine. I will not judge you as ignorant, stupid, or any of the other permutations for following Evolution, as any fault with the theory lies not with you, but with it's creators, and thus you and anyone else in the general public who follows the Theory of Evolution should not be thought less of for it. Can you not afford me the same courtesy while disagreeing with my views?SaunaKalja said:
Well, I do not wish to insight a flame war, so I will state openly and honestly that this is merely my opinion based upon an equal study of evolutions proprietors and its detractors. I do not pretend to be the most knowledgeable man in my field, but I do my best to form an educated opinion.Link Yeah said:
1. Lack of proof: While natural selection(changes within a species) is a documented and rightly respected theory, grand evolution(such as Darwin's example of a finch turning into an eagle)has no support in actual proof as of yet. It is riddled with "what ifs" and inconsistencies, and I believe that leaves it heavily up for debate.
2. Lack of debate: Evolution could be a much stronger theory, if it were actually discussed on a real level. "Iron sharpens iron". However, whenever detractors come forth, they are simply called ridiculous louts, and have their credibility stripped.
Finally, I have moral complications with mindset that evolution creates. I won't go into them here unless specifically requested to, as they are a completely different topic and contain some polarizing material. Suffice to say I believe evolution to be too unbalanced in its principles to be a correct standpoint for general motivations.
With the current British political situation I am constantly being blamed for every ill the world has, as a Liberal Democrat I am hated by Labour voters because us Liberals got their party out of office apparently and hated by the conservatives because we are in power with them in a coalition! SO I am hearing dumb things daily.
For example " You f**ing liberals are using power to take jobs from the Englishman not like Labour they were all true Blue Englishmen who cared for our country!".... despite the Labour being led by a Scotsman....
It goes on but I hate the way people assume life is going to be as bad as it was under Thatcher
For example " You f**ing liberals are using power to take jobs from the Englishman not like Labour they were all true Blue Englishmen who cared for our country!".... despite the Labour being led by a Scotsman....
It goes on but I hate the way people assume life is going to be as bad as it was under Thatcher
Perhaps "Flaw" is the wrong term, a better term would be "Lack of evidence" Because as far a I know, scientists have yet to view speciation in a lab and thus it seems to be assumed that animal species can change species even though it has not been observed. Whether or not this a reasonable assumption to make depends on your point of view. Thats why I said it "May" be flawed. I am not smart enough to say for sure one way or the other.Link Yeah said:
@Skyline14
Also - being isolated or considered a lunatic for not believing in overwhelmingly accepted theories within scientific and academic forums is not limited to evolution. If one is so ignorant in the face of logic and evidence to believe that the Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth then of course they will be considered an irrational lunatic.
It is no surprise that this is also the case with evolution-disputers.
However, I think that evolution is not given anywhere near enough credibility as a widely-agreed theory. How it is still up for debate is astonishing - similarly to abortion/homosexuality (Christianity), circumcision/kosher (Judaism) and rape/punishments/sexism/takeyourpick (Islam) it is ultimately because of religion that the progress and adoption of rational science is stunted
Also - being isolated or considered a lunatic for not believing in overwhelmingly accepted theories within scientific and academic forums is not limited to evolution. If one is so ignorant in the face of logic and evidence to believe that the Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth then of course they will be considered an irrational lunatic.
It is no surprise that this is also the case with evolution-disputers.
However, I think that evolution is not given anywhere near enough credibility as a widely-agreed theory. How it is still up for debate is astonishing - similarly to abortion/homosexuality (Christianity), circumcision/kosher (Judaism) and rape/punishments/sexism/takeyourpick (Islam) it is ultimately because of religion that the progress and adoption of rational science is stunted
@Chrono180
There are no such thing as species; we simply classify various stages of animals based on the evidence we have at hand. Bizarrely, if we had access to a fossil of every creature that has ever existed then there would be absolutely no way to classify each species! We would see a continuous line of almost impossibly minute changes all the way from the single-celled primitive life forms all the way to modern-day mammals, viruses, plants and bacteria. Amazing, huh?
Gaps, rather than flaws, would be more accurate. Deliberately placed gaps (in the face of insufficient evidence in certain areas) however, in much the same way that the periodic table was designed.
There are no such thing as species; we simply classify various stages of animals based on the evidence we have at hand. Bizarrely, if we had access to a fossil of every creature that has ever existed then there would be absolutely no way to classify each species! We would see a continuous line of almost impossibly minute changes all the way from the single-celled primitive life forms all the way to modern-day mammals, viruses, plants and bacteria. Amazing, huh?
Gaps, rather than flaws, would be more accurate. Deliberately placed gaps (in the face of insufficient evidence in certain areas) however, in much the same way that the periodic table was designed.