SpaghettiSawUs
Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007
|
What I notice about the humour of these people that remains so childish, which is of course to be expected since they clearly possess undeveloped cognitive skills.
A good joke takes reality and bends it, that's what makes it funny: it's almost familiar. The alternative reality of the creos leads only to insular humour - they're only funny if you subscribe to the worldview.
A pun is usually useful, but better puns require a better grasp of word definitions, something which Creo-bots have a hard time with.
Cognition and abstraction go hand in hand, when these are limited then good humour is impossible. The only fun derived is of the "poking" (at the evilutionist atheist conspirator) variety. That's an in joke to the in group, a bonding joke.
The preponderance of fart humour belies not only poor humour, but poor wit. Wit speaks to a clear point, an observation or assertion of an evident truism, laced with humour. The wit must first have an answer from which to draw a witty response. Thus, either the purveyor of the fart joke lacks wit, or else he has no answer.
The little flash animation I saw post Dover, with heads yakking (not sure where I watched it but if anyone knows the one please linky) was pretty sad, and the absence of anything actually witty was telling.
It's hard to be funny when the law just told you "you suck".
Cheers
Spags
PS.. this may, or may not, be funny:
How many AFDave's does it take to change a lightbulb?
LIGHTBULBS CHANGED IN ONE MINUTE:
SCIENCE AGAIN CHAMPIONS THE ANTHROPOCENTRIC FAITH!
i have shown how lightbulb changing was a tenet of the Queen of Sciences (theology) before Darwin, who claimed that lightbulbs changed gradually over millions of years. But when I googled "lightbulb changing" I found countless papers showing that lightbulbs were DESIGNED to be changed safely and RAPIDLY, allowing plenty of time for lightbulbs to have developed into millions of different varieties in the 4700 years since the flood!
As OA, Faid and others have rightly pointed out, someone here is making fallacies of definition and argumentum ad googlum, and that person is Eric. Sorry Eric you need to get on topic, we're not addressing lightbulb factories at this time as I already covered that in my Alberts quotation, which you have not addressed. If you can get on topic I may consider reading your posts again.
Todays topic...
LONGLIFE LIGHTBULBS DEMONSTRATES VALIDITY OF LONGLIFE PATRIARCHS
Now someone, I think it was VoxRat but I don't read his posts either, was asking...[ad-infinitum, ad nauseum..]
--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"
|
Smooth. 
