Pilgrims worship Darwin's image in wall stain
Like Christian pilgrims worshiping at the Fountain of Lourdes or the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Darwinist pilgrims are worshiping what appears to be an image of Darwin in a wall stain in Dayton, Tennessee, the site of the famous 1925 Scopes "monkey trial."
A news article says,
"It's a stain on a wall, and nothing more," said the Rev. Clement McCoy, a professor at Oral Roberts University and prominent opponent of evolutionary theory. "Anything else is the delusional fantasy of a fanatical evolutionist mindset that sees only what it wishes to see in the hopes of validating a baseless, illogical belief system. I only hope these heretics see the error of their ways before our Most Powerful God smites them all in His vengeance."
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/05/2008 08:56:00 PM
26 Comments:
The onion is usually good for a chuckle.
Larry, we know you're a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but please tell me you do realise The Onion is a satirical publication?
Larry will now pretend that he knew it was satire. Keep digging Larry.
HAHA it looks like BarryA over at uncommonly dense posted the story too and didn't realize it was satire.
>>>>>> Larry will now pretend that he knew it was satire. <<<<<<
You can get into serious legal trouble for that kind of satire. After all, this was not April Fools' Day.
After reading the article titled "Evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land" in the newsletter of the Creation Science Association For Mid-America, why should I suspect that this Onion article is a satire?
> You can get into serious legal trouble for that kind of satire.<
Not when every sane person would know that it is satire.
> After all, this was not April Fools' Day. <
Your foolishness doesn't be limited to any particular month.
> why should I suspect that this Onion article is a satire? <
Perhaps because that is the sole purpose of the magazine?
And that 'serious legal trouble' would be what, exactly?
Satire in The Onion has been taken for legitimate news before, at least according to that Darwinist Bible, the "Wackopedia."
I wouldn't be suprised if some Darwinites started to literally worship old Chuck, since they already bake cakes for his birthday. And sing "Darwin Carols!"
The interesting thing is that The Onion used to satirize intelligent design. Now they are making fun of the Darwinists. And who can blame them? Darwin-fans are an increasingly fat target.
PZ, after all, obtained a consecrated wafer of the sort that Catholics use in the Eucharist, and claimed that he had damaged it. I wonder what the buffoon hoped to gain by doing that?
PZ doesn't have to wait until April to make a fool of himself. This is the same guy who has lately been praising Kenneth R. Miller, a Darwinist who is apparently a Catholic.
Miller has also been working hard to attract The Onion's attention. He's been pointing to the "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us,) motto on German soldiers' belt buckles in WWII, while bizarrely implying that Saint Chuck's notions in no way helped to foster Nazism! (And this guy Miller is supposed to be a Christian?)
Ken is poorly informed if he thinks that the Nazi leaders were Christians, or followers of any other traditional religion. Hitler and his sleazy propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, were "liars." Since most ordinary German soldiers were Christians, rather than Nazis, the "Gott Mit Uns" bit was obvious propaganda to try to dupe them into fighting harder. I rather doubt that it helped much, but Adolf and Josef had nothing to lose by trying.
Come on guys! Can't you see that Larry Fafarman is a name used by some Darwin supporter. The idea is to make all creationist look as dumb as this "Larry". It looks like many of you bought into this.
>>>>The interesting thing is that The Onion used to satirize intelligent design. Now they are making fun of the Darwinists. And who can blame them? Darwin-fans are an increasingly fat target.<<<<
No, they're making fun of people who claim that evolutionists are Darwin-worshipers.
No, they are making fun of PZ and other bungleheads who somehow think that Larry is a creationist.
Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>> I wouldn't be suprised if some Darwinites started to literally worship old Chuck, since they already bake cakes for his birthday. And sing "Darwin Carols!" <<<<<<
You're kidding. I heard of the birthday cakes, but "Darwin Carols"?
I already mentioned the article, "Evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land." As for the Darwinists in the article, their behavior is also too realistic to be satire -- we have the "I love Darwin" stuff (even a doggie shirt), the "Friend of Darwin" certificates handed out at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs team, the ridiculous Darwin Day merrymaking, the Clergy Letter, the Darwin Sunday sermons, the Darwin-Lincoln crap, the evolution-is-central-to-biology crap, etc.. Then there is the logo of www.ThankGodForEvolution.com
Brossa said,
>>>>>> And that 'serious legal trouble' would be what, exactly? <<<<<<<<
Oral Roberts Univ. or that professor (if he exists) could sue Onion for libel.
"The Onion" guys know when they've found a fat target for satire:
"But those who have made the long journey to Dayton remain steadfast in their belief that natural selection--a process by which certain genes are favored over others less conducive to survival--is the one and only creator of life as we know it."
Yup,it's an amusing faith, isn't it? It's rumored that those who've still "got the faith," including PZ and Dawkins, are going to start handing out tracts on streetcorners, which will read:
"Darwin saves! He saves from...uh, from all religions except Darwinism!"
Also, after the pro-ID members of the Dover school board were voted out, televangelist Pat Robertson said,
"If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there."
Also, Robertson said in a later statement,
"I was simply stating that our spiritual actions have consequences and it's high time we started recognizing it," he said. "God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in His eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin ... maybe he can help them."
Satire, my eye!
Larry can't believe the "Darwin carols," but they exist! The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on the Darwin Day festivities, on Feb. 12, 2006:
"And at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, students will sing Darwin carols they composed."
I found that on the online ProQuest newspaper database, which conveniently indexes many newspaper articles. But there probably is an URL that can be found, also.
JS, you left your marbles in your freezer.
> Oral Roberts Univ. or that professor (if he exists) could sue Onion for libel.<
Perhaps you could sue for them. You have in the past filed lawsuits where you had no standing.
The judges probably need a good laugh.
Hectoring Hector barfed,
>>>>>> Perhaps you could sue for them. You have in the past filed lawsuits where you had no standing. <<<<<<<
As it turned out, dunghill, I did have standing even though I didn't pay the "smog impact fee" -- it's just that I didn't realize that I had standing under a "citizen sut" statute, 42 USC ยง7604, which gives anyone standing to sue the EPA for failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty. An expert testified in state court that EPA approval was required for the smog impact fee, so the EPA failed to enforce an implicit requirement for EPA approval of the fee. And my non-payment of the fee cannot excuse the judges' decisions, doofus, because they were unaware that I hadn't paid the fee. The Supreme Court said in Parden v. Terminal Railway that a state loses its immunity in federal court when the state "leaves the sphere that is exclusively its own," so these crooked judges ruled that the Supreme Court was WRONG.
As for the Onion article -- of course, the Onion could not be sued for obvious satire, but I have shown that the statements of the perhaps imaginary professor are credible, and that therefore the professor (if he exists) or even the university might have grounds for a libel suit.
I never heard of the Onion website before (yes, dunghill, there are some things that people -- even knowledgeable people -- have not heard of) and of course was unaware that the website posts satire, and because of my vastly superior knowledge which I have demonstrated here regarding this subject, I found the article to be credible and was completely taken in, and I am not ashamed of that -- in fact, I am proud of it because my credulity was the result of my superior knowledge of the subject.
>>>>> The judges probably need a good laugh. <<<<<<
The laugh's on you, dunghill.
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
> so these crooked judges ruled that the Supreme Court was WRONG. <
No. That's not why you were laughed out of court - repeatedly.
> I have shown that the statements of the perhaps imaginary professor are credible <
Where is that?
> there are some things that people -- even knowledgeable people -- have not heard of <
We are not talking about knowledgeable people. We were talking about you.
> and because of my vastly superior knowledge which I have demonstrated here regarding this subject <
You have never shown superior knowledge on any subject.
We are always kicking your butt -- that's why you don't like us."
So Larry claims that his alleged "superior knowledge" is the explanation for his ignorance.
I guess if you live long enough you get to see everything...
>>>>Satire is not real and hence it is impossible to be ignorant of it.<<<<
Holy God in Heaven, were you high when you wrote that? I mean, seriously - are the meds wearing off or something? That fails to make sense on about five different levels.
>>>>Satire is not real and hence it is impossible to be ignorant of it.<
That fails to make sense on about five different levels. <<<<<<
What five different levels, dunghill? One can misunderstand satire, or misinterpret it, or be taken in by it, or whatever, but one cannot be "ignorant" of it.
I have presented numerous real-life examples here showing that this so-called "satire" is actually credible. Why can't you lousy trolls just accept that? Why in the hell do you always try to be one up on me? Who do you think you are impressing or fooling? If I am such a big nobody, why do you waste your time commenting here?
>>>>If I am such a big nobody, why do you waste your time commenting here?<<<<
Because "point and laugh at the retard" is a powerful and widespread impulse - see the comedic success of Larry the Cable Guy or Jim Carrey in his "Ace Ventura" days, or the popularity of Jerry Springer and his ilk. You are like a guest on Springer's show: defiantly crowing that smoking crack is the best thing that ever happened to you while the audience hoot and holler at you. They don't think that the crackhead is a threat to God, Mom, and Country any more than your critics think you're a threat to >100 years of evolutionary theory.
>>>>What five different levels, dunghill?<<<<
Well, let's see, shall we?
1) "Satire is not real" - nonsensical. Do you claim that satire does not exist? That's quite A Modest Proposal.
2) "Hence it is impossible to be ignorant of it" - utter batshit insanity. Assuming that satire had never existed, and therefore one had never encountered the concept, one would therefore be utterly ignorant of it by definition. Just as we are all ignorant of $mith7!, the unique emotion evoked by the sensation of running your inner thigh over the fifth-dimensional projection of a seven-dimensional eggplant. Or at least we were all ignorant of it until I made it up and mentioned it just now.
3) Let's be generous and paraphrase your argument as 'because satire is often subjective, it is impossible to recognize satire under any circumstances.' - again, bullshit. It is often difficult for the targets of satire to identify satire, but those who share the satirist's viewpoint typically have no such difficulty. If you've been taken in by satire, it's because you're the target, dumbass.
4) Maybe you just mean that it's impossible to be ignorant that the source of an article is a fairly well-known satirical website and newspaper. Well, that's pretty stupid, too. Clearly you were ignorant of that fact, so that can't be right.
5) The mere statement 'it is impossible to be ignorant of it' makes no sense, even removed from its nonsensical context. Can you honestly claim that there is any idea that it is 'impossible to be ignorant of'?
Hey, look, there are your five. Frankly, if it had only been one or two or seven or forty, it wouldn't have mattered, since according to you errors of basic fact have no bearing on one's credibility.
>If I am such a big nobody, why do you waste your time commenting here?<
Two words, Larry: side show.
You are the bearded lady of the evolution blogosphere.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
"As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls."
Translation: Larry has FINALLY realised he's in a deep, deep hole, and belatedly realised his best course of action is to stop digging.
Which would be the first sensible reaction from Larry since this blog started. Maybe he's learning, after all...
Post a Comment
<< Home