…and this is a 
In case you've been wondering what was going to come after Intelligent Design, here's a similar hypothesis I stumbled across, Intelligent Gestation Theory.
Hello fellow Christians and Atheists,
My name is Erik Lumberjack. I'm founder and chief scientist of the recently formed Intelligent Gestation Institute. Our goal is apply insights gained from Intelligent Design to combat the current Theory of Pregnancy, i.e., that humans develop gradually from a sperm and egg. Our FAQs below provide more details.
Thank you and best regards, Eric Lumberjack
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
Thank you for teaching Intelligent Design alongside the Theory of Evolution. Our children deserve to hear multiple viewpoints. I'm concerned, though, that only one Theory of Pregnancy is currently being taught.
Namely, that humans develop in gradual stages from an initial sperm and egg. First looking like a salmon, and then a lizard, and only after long and slow development finally resembling a human.
As founder and chief scientist of the Intelligent Gestation Institute, I request that equal time be given to Intelligent Gestation, an alternative approach that is gaining increasing support within the scientific community.
These are key points regarding Intelligent Gestation for your reference.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Question: Then why does the mother's stomach get bigger?
Answer: Scientific studies have shown that it's impossible for human breasts alone to hold the amount of milk required to nurture infants. That's why the body gradually prepares by storing milk in the mothers' stomach. Scientific evidence of this can be seen by observing cows.Question: But sonograms show pictures of developing infants, don't they?
Answer: Experiments have shown that ultrasound equipment creates sound waves that cause milk to curdle. So medical staff are creating these images, and then the very same staff are interpreting the images that they themselves created. This can hardly be called scientific.Question: Then where do babies come from?
Answer: Let's not base conclusions on anecdotes, but look at the case for which we have the most recorded evidence. When the key figure of human history was born, textual research has shown that he was begotten as son when a dove descended from the heavens. More than 2,000 original texts agree on this point, many of them dating back to several years from the original event, when eye witnesses were still living. In addition to this, the past 2,000 years of historical observation have also taught us where babies come from. The stork -- which the genome project has just recently proven to be of the same ovarian family, genus and phyla as the dove. The probability of this coincidence occurring by chance alone has been calculated at less than 1 over a number so large that it is greater than the number of subatomic particles in the entire state of Arkansas.Question: Is Intelligent Gestation faith based?
Answer: No. Unlike the Theory of Pregnancy, it is based on observable and testable scientific fact.Please contact us if you would like more details, or free samples of the textbooks that we are preparing for your school use.
Thank you, and best regards,
Erik Lumberjack
Founder and Chief Scientist
Intelligent Gestation InstituteWeb site: https://sites.google.com/site/intelligentgestationinstitute/
Alternate site: http://www.intelligent-gestation.com
Contact info: erik.lumberj...@gmail.comFAQ FOR SCIENTISTS
Question: But why does the mother's stomach get smaller immediately after childbirth?
Answer: When the infant arrives, the milk transfers from the mother's stomach to the mother's breasts in preparation for breast feeding. How else could a mother feed her child? We challenge scientists to provide us with one example where a mother has breast fed her child from her stomach.Question: But I've seen photos of children being born directly from their mothers.
Answer: Photos can be retouched. But more importantly, why are you looking down there?Question: Delivery rooms are sealed off. How could a stork or dove get in?
Answer: Ships are made of reinforced steel, but mice have entered them for centuries. We challenge scientists to produce one example of a ship without a mouse.Question: I've been in delivery rooms and never seen a stork or dove.
Answer: Absence of evidence of stork is not evidence of absence of stork. We don't notice mice either, but one day we open our refrigerator door and notice the cheese is missing. The result speaks for itself.Question: But I've seen an egg cell divide in science class after being joined by a sperm.
Answer: Imagine that you're an egg and a sperm collides with you at the equivalent of 2,000 kilometers per hour. You would divide as well.Question: Does this mean that you're not opposed to stem cell research?
Answer: We are not opposed, but our scientists don't expect viable medical applications. Any experiments done on stem cells would surely only be applicable to similar plants with similar stems.Question: Why is the Intelligent Gestation Institute speaking out at this time?
Answer: If our children are taught in school that humans develop in their mothers' wombs from something that looks like a catfish, and then a gecko, and then a reces monkey, and finally a human, it's not a small step for them to believe later on that man evolved from ape. This reduces humans to something purely physical and degrades our worth as spiritual beings. If our children believe they descended from heaven, they will try to act heavenly. But how will our children act if they are taught they come from come? How will they be encouraged to act morally? To be honest, our scientists are disappointed that the Intelligent Design community has thrown in the towel so readily on this very important issue.Question: Would you be willing to debate Richard Dawkins on this issue?
Answer: It would look good on his resume, but we're not so sure about ours. We would consider such an opportunity, but must take care not to elevate his theories to appear to have the achieved the status of true science.Question: What are the academic qualifications of the scientists at your institute? We've been told that your chief research scientist has a B.Sc. degree from the Livestock University of Kentucky with a major in roast beef and a minor in mashed potatoes.
Answer: That is completely unfounded and we're disappointed that the secular press has stooped to using add homily arguments to try to discredit us.Question: In summary, is there any decisive evidence that you can give us?
Answer: It basically comes down to this. Which is more likely, that we developed in our mothers' wombs through an unimaginably large number of intermediate stages and then due to purely physical forces and blind chance ended up as human beings that are fine tuned to an order of magnitude of 10 to the 1,000th power, or that we're a bundle from heaven? Occam's razor makes the answer more than obvious. Let me give an example. Let's say you're walking on a beach and find a baby wrapped in a blanket on the sand. Which is more likely, that an intelligent being left the baby there, or that someone came on the beach? People that make extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence to support those claims. The burden of proof lies with them, not us. Our Institute is prepared to offer $100,000 to anyone who will pop a nut on national TV and form something as intricate as the human eye from sperm. And anyways, if humans developed in their mothers' wombs from something that looked like a catfish, how come you don't see catfish walking among us today and giving interviews on TV?
Comments
Posted by: Rorschach
|
August 29, 2010 7:59 AM
Ah, great, let's start the day with some music then, shall we :
Lumberjack Song
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
August 29, 2010 8:02 AM
That was hysterical, but lost a bit by using vulgar language. The language doesn't offend, but it does break the satire.
Posted by: m.espositoii
|
August 29, 2010 8:04 AM
Blasted Googlemess... refer to me as MZ...
I hope this is just a joke, I mean seriously, Dawkins already blasted this out of the water preemptively from his talks to Unis around. (Oklahoma being the more noted) via YouTube which he also blasted away that fool Stein.
I'd like them (this is baised on it NOT being a joke) to explain how inviro is then a failure when several hundred people have been successful in concieving because of which. Or that surrogate mothers can carry another womans child to term through inviro.
Posted by: boon.kees
|
August 29, 2010 8:08 AM
Honestly #3. This is a Poe. Are you joking?
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
August 29, 2010 8:11 AM
A funny way to start the day, and a good way to illustrate the idiocy of ID.
Posted by: Protium
|
August 29, 2010 8:13 AM
Well this blows Stork Theory out of the water.
Posted by: evogene
|
August 29, 2010 8:19 AM
These guys theory is funnier than the preformation theory.
Posted by: msadesign
|
August 29, 2010 8:23 AM
I love this shit.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
August 29, 2010 8:24 AM
MZ,
It is a joke, one being made at the expense of the Intelligent Design crowd.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
August 29, 2010 8:25 AM
This is hilarious! I especially like the last line: "And anyways, if humans developed in their mothers' wombs from something that looked like a catfish, how come you don't see catfish walking among us today and giving interviews on TV?"
Almost made me spit my coffee all over my new, sniny laptop!
Squigit
Posted by: No One
|
August 29, 2010 8:26 AM
Don't see the big deal, it's just a theory.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
August 29, 2010 8:40 AM
Not sure what was funnier - the satire or the inability of #3 to recognize it.
Posted by: Tomato Addict
|
August 29, 2010 8:43 AM
With a name like Eric Lumberjack, he's just got to be a Monty Python fan.
Eric the Half-a-Bee
Posted by: Matthew G
|
August 29, 2010 8:44 AM
The sign of a good Poe, spending the first half of the article knowing whether it's too ridiculous to be genuine, or so ridiculous it MUST be genuine.
Posted by: RockyHarper
|
August 29, 2010 8:51 AM
Livestock University. Sounds impressive.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
August 29, 2010 8:51 AM
Terrific !
(I thought I would be the first to make the "and he's OK" joke, but that was very naive from me...)
Posted by: NotStradamus
|
August 29, 2010 8:52 AM
This was almost up to same standard as Planet of the Hats or The Courtier's Reply.
I especially liked the spelling of reces monkey, a stroke of genius. I wonder if PZ saw some ignorant buffoon spell it that way or came up with the idea on his own.
Posted by: RijkswaanVijanD
|
August 29, 2010 9:02 AM
Wow..
This makes absolute sense!
I'd love to be a recess monkey though!!
Posted by: BilBy
|
August 29, 2010 9:13 AM
Schweet bru! Very funny but MZ topped it with his respond-poe.
Posted by: BilBy
|
August 29, 2010 9:15 AM
'respond-poe' - which should of course be called a 'quid pro poe'. Or perhaps a 'squid pro poe' on this site
Posted by: pete d
|
August 29, 2010 9:16 AM
Funny stuff. In their FAQs I'd like to see them address the fact that I could feel the babies head at 9 months by sticking my fingers waaaayyyy back (my wife is an MD and encouraged my curiosity!). I mean, did she just form some kind of large milk curd that settled to the bottom of her abdominal cavity?
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
August 29, 2010 9:19 AM
Wow,very funny. I did see the stork twist coming fairly early, but overall it's a fantastic piece.
I think the success of using foul language in satire depends who your audience is. Anyone who has grown up on South Park considers foul language an innate part of satire.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/08/glenn-beck-honor-rally-and-military.html
Posted by: Caddisfly
|
August 29, 2010 9:28 AM
Just blew my morning coffee out my nose, very funny. Now I need to fetch a towel.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
August 29, 2010 9:34 AM
sigh
Posted by: llewelly
|
August 29, 2010 9:44 AM
pete d | August 29, 2010 9:16 AM:
Hah! How obvious. It is clear you invented your story about the baby's head in order to give you a seemingly legitimate reason for "sticking [your] fingers waaaayyyy back". You are a pervert and a sexual deviant and lying to cover it up. Oh, and you don't know the difference between plural and possessive.
Posted by: Moggie
|
August 29, 2010 9:48 AM
I'm hoping English isn't #3's first language.
Posted by: Ken Pidcock
|
August 29, 2010 9:48 AM
Excellent job, and carefully composed to mimic something from Center for Science and Culture.Posted by: irenedelse
|
August 29, 2010 9:50 AM
Genius.
Posted by: Shala
|
August 29, 2010 9:51 AM
Livestock University. Sounds impressive.
I'd much rather go there than Liberty University, that's for sure. At least you can learn something meaningful when it comes to livestock.
Posted by: Zeno
|
August 29, 2010 9:54 AM
I, too, denounce "add homily" arguments. In my opinion, the less homily the better.
Posted by: llewelly
|
August 29, 2010 9:54 AM
MZ | August 29, 2010 8:04 AM:
The people telling you this is a joke are engaging in wishful thinking. They are wrong. It is truth. They believe it to be a joke because they wish to live in a world of perversion, deviance, and hedonism. They are atheists, and communists, and terrorists, and they want to have sex with Adolf Hitler. Before you consider believing them, ask yourself this question: Do you want to be a pervert? Do you want to be an atheist, a communist, and a terrorist? Do you want to have sex with Adolf Hitler?
Posted by: Zeno
|
August 29, 2010 10:01 AM
Observations of nature are the best way to attain scientific knowledge. Consult your local farmacist for more examples.
Posted by: Shala
|
August 29, 2010 10:04 AM
local farmacist
OH HO HO HO
that was udderly amazing dear zeno
Posted by: Moggie
|
August 29, 2010 10:05 AM
#32:
Ha! You expect me to believe Big Farmer?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
August 29, 2010 10:06 AM
During elementary school, I turned into a recess monkey twice a day.
Posted by: Fred Price, The Cantankerous Cephalopod
|
August 29, 2010 10:18 AM
yes, well, all this POE stuff is very funny buuut....its nevar going to be as great as "more than the total of subatomic particles in the state of Arkansas." therefore, intelligent gestation.
Posted by: Fred Price, The Cantankerous Cephalopod
|
August 29, 2010 10:22 AM
#34 and #35, brilliant, just brilliant.
Posted by: joe
|
August 29, 2010 10:29 AM
Frightening to think that these ignorant people live in our Country in this Century. Even more frightening, they find plenty of individuals who share their views.
Posted by: elronxenu
|
August 29, 2010 10:30 AM
Nice work, but he forgot to make a mistake in search-and-replace which will make it obvious what his text used to say :-)
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
August 29, 2010 10:31 AM
What ignorant people are those ?
The people behind the pseudonym, Eric Lumberjack, the people who think he (or they) was being serious, or the targets of their satire, the Intelligent Design Creationists ?
Posted by: m.espositoii
|
August 29, 2010 10:35 AM
I see... everything does make more sense after coffee... odd never had that happen to me before.
I obviously was able to see it as a joke but not laugh... I guess living here in Texas and hearing the various batshit crazy on the regular has doubled me over what's satire and comedy verses what they're actually thinking is true.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
August 29, 2010 10:37 AM
Scientific evidence of this can be seen by observing cows.
We can steer the conversation to the latest developments.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
August 29, 2010 10:38 AM
double sigh
Posted by: vanbeverningk
|
August 29, 2010 10:39 AM
I'm sure Erik's happy that PZ published this, after first having been snubbed by the folks over at Dawkins' site:
See: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f3005551cf46c712/f1997cbc57d55667#f1997cbc57d55667
Posted by: Robert H
|
August 29, 2010 10:40 AM
This is absurd! As the science of preformationism teaches, we come from homunculi! Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Galen can't be wrong! Wake us, America! Don't be dupes of sciencism!
Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
August 29, 2010 10:41 AM
I don't regret that I'm pissing myself laughing.
Posted by: hje
|
August 29, 2010 10:43 AM
I seem to remember one of the DI luminaries arguing that embryonic development will never be completely explained by science. I'm surprised they haven't already advocated an intelligent embryonic development theory, arguing to Christian audiences that it must be true, because the Bible says God fashioned us in the womb.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
August 29, 2010 10:50 AM
But where do storks come from?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 29, 2010 10:55 AM
Silly man. It's storks all the way down.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
August 29, 2010 10:59 AM
Sorry, but Mr. Lumberjack forgot the most important question (ahem). To whit: when exactly do the ensoulment take place? Is it when the stork delivers the baby to the joyful parents? Or does the baby-to-be-delivered, inside a cloth package held in the stork's beak, already has a soul? And can this divine spark survive the flight in high altitude? These are the difficult questions science is baffled about!
Posted by: Victor
|
August 29, 2010 11:01 AM
Well, if that letter's being sent to Kansas, they'll adopt it. Science-y language with a whole lot of woo, it's right up their alley. Let's hope a copy doesn't get sent to the Texas school board or it'll be in science text books by the end of the year.
Posted by: joe
|
August 29, 2010 11:03 AM
The saddest thing is that due to the state of ignorance and stupidity in today's America, even the absurd "Lumberjack's theory" article becomes credible. Did any of you listen to the speakers from the Mall yesterday? This alone should have stopped you from laughing.
Posted by: Sophists full of Dollars
|
August 29, 2010 11:05 AM
Ah, the Caesarean section baby. Where the stork has accidently dropped the baby into the section of the stomach's milk sack that is polytheistic and has to be rescued by surgery before the baby becomes rendered unto Caesar.
That's how i was born.
Posted by: Dust.....spy
|
August 29, 2010 11:08 AM
Which came first, the stork or the egg?
Posted by: Nowhere Man
|
August 29, 2010 11:09 AM
What, no mention of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (popularly cast as "order cannot arise from disorder")? Just as the 2nd Law blasts evolution into smithereens, it does the same to ontogeny. Thank you for providing a lucid alternative explanation for this miraculous process.
Of course, the theory needs further development to explain the maturation of a newborn baby into a grownup. I'm sure this new knowledge will be revealed in due course.
Posted by: Dust.....spy
|
August 29, 2010 11:17 AM
Intelligent Gestation Theory:
All the PROOF! you need.
Posted by: A. Nuran
|
August 29, 2010 11:20 AM
I'm less offended by the foul language than by the fowl language. Everyone knows the Stork Theory is non-Scriptural. Paul clearly tells us in Second Cephalopodians that babies are found under cabbage leaves.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8nuEGr2AboPw3B5JlVHLruh87cSf2gi4
|
August 29, 2010 11:22 AM
Scientific evidence of this can be seen by observing cows.
But only by objective observers who don't already have a beef with Intelligent Gestation. Too much is at steak here. We can't afford any more ribbing from the so-called "scientific" community, who veal they can just chuck all our evidence out as so much bullshit. No more sitting 'round on our rumps!
--Lauren Ipsum
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
August 29, 2010 11:30 AM
I think you should get your coat.
Posted by: Eric Dutton
|
August 29, 2010 11:35 AM
That made me laugh.Poe has trained me to be far too credulous. Although my mouth was agape, I still believed it was genuine until I got to the part about sonograms causing milk to curdle. Yes, I was ready to believe that someone really thought that a mother's milk is stored in the stomach. My brain was shrieking "NO! NO! NO!" until that passage.
Though, I should have taken a hint from the Gumby-less box.
Posted by: blf
|
August 29, 2010 11:37 AM
I just opened my refrigerator door, and yes indeed, the cheese was missing. Then I looked at the cheeseboard and found the remains… of the cheese. No rodents in sight. No small toothmarks. A knife and a neatly opened package.
Squeaking, I moved my tail out of the way, brushed my fur a bit, and cried. Squeak. Squeak. Squeak. No more cheese…! Calmity! Squeeakkkkk!
Posted by: Athena
|
August 29, 2010 11:40 AM
Lauren Ipsum: EXCELLENT!
Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith
|
August 29, 2010 11:56 AM
Well, I'm willing to give it a try. How many attempts do you think they would allow? I mean, it is for science right?
Nothing to do with my exhibitionism...so um..yeah... bye.
Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith
|
August 29, 2010 11:59 AM
Lauren @ 58
That comment was chuck full of win!
Posted by: rwsoukup1
|
August 29, 2010 12:05 PM
This word, "intelligent"... I do not think it means what they think it means.
Posted by: Alan B
|
August 29, 2010 12:26 PM
Rev BigDumbChimp
You asked us recently whether we had noticed that you had gone to 64 bits. The answer is, "Yes". I think it's made your system is unstable - it throws in random numbers of blank lines. Compare #43 and #24.
(Pleasure - glad to help)
Posted by: djfav
|
August 29, 2010 12:50 PM
"OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD"
I damn near fell off the couch right there. Good stuff.
Posted by: The Pint
|
August 29, 2010 12:51 PM
I think this calls for a Ralph Wiggum classic: "When I grow up, I'm going to go to Bovine University."
And thanks a lot, PZ - snorting hot coffee up one's nose during an uncontrollable spate of laughter is not the most pleasant way to start one's morning.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
August 29, 2010 1:07 PM
This bit about storks and the transfer of milk form the torso to the breast could be solved by simply asking any woman who has giving birth.
'raspberry'
Posted by: coach olson
|
August 29, 2010 1:17 PM
I seems like who ever wrote this should really go get a life and get out of the computer lab. To put so much effort into something so ridiculous is sad. To imagine that Dr. Myers thinks this is worthwhile is even sadder.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
August 29, 2010 1:23 PM
Coach Olson, here is what you do not realize; the person who made this satire did not have to put much time and effort into it. The basic structure was already built by the people who puch ID onto the masses.
And, yes, it is very fucking sad that some people find ID to be worthwhile. It is also sad that sad sacks of shit cannot understand this.
Quick, vomit up an other worthless quote by C. S. Lewis.
Posted by: opposablethumbstoo
|
August 29, 2010 1:36 PM
Keyboard endangerment alert.The last A of the Q&A is breathtaking - from the baby on the beach to the catfish, the logic is just so, so right .... and of course, as Moggie @34 points out, we can't trust Big Farmer.
So where's my new keyboard going to come from?
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
August 29, 2010 2:33 PM
Could this become a standard, too? The Sunday Sacrilege, and the Sunday Poe-ssibilities. It's a good balance between the two of them.
Posted by: nora-anne
|
August 29, 2010 2:50 PM
Oh god, too funny!!
Favorite lines:
Posted by: jeffery.g.davis
|
August 29, 2010 3:03 PM
Ug, the horrible thing is how long it took me to recognize the parody. When a group's ideas are so silly they are unrecognizable from satire . . . it's time to hang it up.
~Rhaco
http://untitledvanityproject.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-debunks-claims-of-missing_29.html
Posted by: Antalya Web Tasarım
|
August 29, 2010 3:13 PM
Good stuff.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8nuEGr2AboPw3B5JlVHLruh87cSf2gi4
|
August 29, 2010 4:18 PM
I think you should get your coat.
My leather jacket, you mean? So I can hoof it out of here? Or should I gird my tender loins against an attack on my flank? I'm really on the horns of a dilemma here. Perhaps you cud give me some advice.
--Lauren Ipsum
Posted by: Matt G
|
August 29, 2010 4:19 PM
Not as funny as it could have been, but not bad. I find it amazing that people are perfectly willing to accept that a single cell can give rise to the trillions of cells which compose a human, but can't accept that modern monkeys and humans evolved from a monkey-like common ancestor. Surely the latter is a smaller intellectual leap.
Posted by: Matt G
|
August 29, 2010 4:29 PM
Scientists rely on proof - creationists rely on POOF! (yes, I realize that proof and evidence are not the same thing, but that would ruin the pun).
Posted by: articulett
|
August 29, 2010 5:17 PM
"But how will our children act if they are taught they come from come?"
*giggles immaturely*
Posted by: mothra
|
August 29, 2010 5:38 PM
@77 You cud simply walk the path, steer to the right, utterly complacent, without a ruminant of doubt or cowardice, and forage ahead! Did I mention that I work at a Land Grant (cow) college.
Posted by: jmorgan1234533
|
August 29, 2010 5:39 PM
#79
Scientists rely on evidence - creationists rely on devience.
Pun saved?
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
August 29, 2010 5:39 PM
Don't be ridiculous; first, that would be that scientific researchy stuff and counter to scripture. Secondly, why would anyone ask a woman about anything; that would be counter to scripture.Posted by: Marco
|
August 29, 2010 5:57 PM
Tomato Addict wrote in post #13:
Well, he may be a Lumberjack...but he's definitely not OK.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 29, 2010 6:40 PM
At last! Finally, an answer to the question I'm sure we have all been asking ourselves for years...
Fucking storks, how do they work?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 29, 2010 6:56 PM
Good satire.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2010 7:00 PM
When a momma stork and daddy stork love each other very much... ;)Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
August 29, 2010 7:04 PM
When a momma stork and daddy stork love each other very much... ;)
Does this mean that a stork delivers the baby stork?
Posted by: DLC
|
August 29, 2010 7:14 PM
Oh sure, like you expect me to believe a woman could possibly shoot a 7 to 8 lb live baby out of her women-parts ! You've got to be kidding me!
(Argument from Personal Incredulity duly created and posted )
Posted by: Warthog
|
August 29, 2010 7:28 PM
STORK!? My wife said she found the kids in the vegetable garden under the cabbages.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 29, 2010 7:35 PM
Oh sure, like you expect me to believe a woman could possibly shoot a 7 to 8 lb live baby out of her women-parts !
of course! The probability against that happening has to be some large random number I shall pull out of my ass any second now.
Posted by: Matt G
|
August 29, 2010 7:45 PM
#82
OK, how about: scientists rely on evidence, creationists rely on effervescence.
Posted by: Harbo
|
August 29, 2010 8:30 PM
Some bloke called L R Hubbard once did one of these, Poe thingys. A really wild one with billion year old souls and stuff!
But people believed him and sent money so he stuck with it.
People are odd.
Posted by: pete d
|
August 29, 2010 9:49 PM
@25...damn those baby's!
Posted by: fiona.eleanora
|
August 30, 2010 6:36 AM
Ichthyic @91 You're pulling babies out of your donkey's arse now? ;) I'm sure the fundies wouldn't approve of _that_.
eleanora (in Aus. where an ass is an animal not a body part.)
Posted by: Billy
|
August 30, 2010 6:47 AM
Wouldn't be surprised if the IDiots believed this :-)
"if humans developed in their mothers' wombs from something that looked like a catfish, how come you don't see catfish walking among us today"
Actually, we do. Members of the genus Clarias "walk" on land. I assume they are just too shy to do interviews - and I challnge IDiots to find one willing to to an interviwe - which will be pretty damn hard because they are too shy.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
August 30, 2010 9:47 AM
Well they're dead wrong, I've seen Jamie Hyneman give interviews and he shows the telltale signs of catfishdom with his intricate system of nerve tipped whiskers.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
August 30, 2010 1:30 PM
I ascribe the the "Sadistic Designer" camp.
My proof? The Sims. Given the ability to design, control, and create artificial lifeform, sooner or later we degenerate into toruturing them to see how they respond.
Posted by: CaptainHeadache
|
August 30, 2010 3:01 PM
Wow.
It really was about the halfway point that I realized it HAD to be a Poe, but not until the end did it occur to me that, regardless of that fact, I know people that would jump on this and believe it without question.
*sigh*
That almost took the fun out of it for me...but not quite.
Posted by: araujodiego23
|
September 6, 2010 10:30 AM
I can`t believe this is happening. Please someonetell me this "man" don`t believes a dove or a stork put babies on the mother. I couldn`t read this to the end!