Bless you!

| 15 Comments

15 Comments

Oh the cute! I’m going into insulin shock now.

:) Just like real parents.…don’t let the baby interrupt a good bite to eat :)

That’s quite possibly the cutest thing I’ve ever seen.

Pandas don’t even look like real animals. They look like big teddy bears. Something about their shape, their ears, the patterns around their eyes - they look like someone made a creature from a fairytale real! They’re almost-sickeningly cute!

Sweet.

After the play ends, check out the educational video at the right end of the preview bar that appears. It stars a panda named Steve.

Pandas may look chubby, but remember, after they got off the ark, they walked all the way from Turkey to China.

Pandas may look chubby, but remember, after they got off the ark, they walked all the way from Turkey to China.

Not half as impressive as the sloths that made it back to South America.

Not half as impressive as the sloths that made it back to South America.

Oh, that’s nothing: Think of the trek of the lowly platypus, with webbed feet, and sensitive snout, no less. Or the spiny echidna.

The Sexy Panda video is totally hillarious!!!!!

Oh, that’s nothing: Think of the trek of the lowly platypus, with webbed feet, and sensitive snout, no less. Or the spiny echidna.

I used to think that, but then a creationist explained to me that humans brought the animals to Australia and thereabouts after the flood. You know, from 6 to 9 of the 10 most deadly snakes (the web lets you pick from those four numbers), funnel-web spiders, and not a single cow, donkey, horse, sheep, or other useful agricultural animal.

I’m not sure what he thought about the brains of aborigines.

But then again, is that any worse than Behe’s claim that humans are the telos of design, yet were thoughtfully supplied with malaria and mosquito vectors for malaria by that same designer (IOW, where’s the evidence of intelligence, either for the designer or for Behe?)?

At least they’re all interesting, albeit in a pathological sort of way.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Glen: How do you know what a putative designer’s intentions would be? IAMFI.

The claimed evidence for intelligence is that a non-intelligent process is not able to produce either human or malarial parasite - empirical observation and mathematical calculation is offered in support of that. So how about rather than engaging in philosophical vagaries about the aims of the designer, you respond to the observations and maths, which are the realm of science?

Where, exactly, is mathematical calculation presented concerning support for IDC?

Some of the related videos are hilarious. Check out the “Panda Sneeze Revealed.”

Glen: How do you know what a putative designer’s intentions would be?

Unlike a bus driver and his pretensions to know philosophy and science, I do what any scientist does, I look at actual designers and their results.

I’m sorry that such an obvious tactic surpasses your level of understanding, as well as the understandings of Behe and Dembski.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on August 7, 2007 8:37 PM.

Explore Evolution: The Discovery Institute’s winsome creationist textbook was the previous entry in this blog.

New Fossils and Our Understanding of Human Evolution is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter