Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory

of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in

the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory

at school.

In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour

of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught

in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth.

Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This

can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the

theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately

nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a

newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of

sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where

sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive

correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are

decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific

methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the

stork.



--------------------------------------------

Just thought you all might enjoy that.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Or this one...

--------------------------------------------

Scientists and God

One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The Darwinian walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no

longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let's say we have a man-making contest.", to which the Darwinian happily agreed.

God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The Darwinian said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!!"





[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-10-2005).]

Your first post was a hamhanded attempt at satire, and is patently unamusing to anybody with even a cursory knowledge of scientific theory and method; it's like trying to make a joke using logical constructs - it doesn't work.

Second post is marginally humorous, but loses a lot because I'm an educated person, and realize that a "Darwinian" would not need to do anything to create life, because life comes of its own accord. Thus the joke is inherently flawed to the educated subset, and fails to be humorous because the flaw trumps the joke.

To conclude, you won't get any laughs any way, because the jokes require a knowledge of science to be humorous, and the same knowledge renders them unhumorous.

Try again.

Wow...you need to find yourself a girlfriend, man.

They were just jokes.

You can be anal-retentive if it makes you feel better, but interestingly enough it serves to prove that you have no idea how to conceptualize life outside of your angry little world.

Grow up, Mook. I thought you were better than that.

Well, as an average person with a bit of education, a bit of faith (not christian, but faith nonetheless), and a good sense of the absurd, I found them both funny.

National Lampoon magazine used to have a series called 'Professor Kenilworth' back in the eighties, disecting jokes. If you look too hard at them, none of them are funny, but most jokes either offend, make you laugh, or both.

I guess some can just leave you cold, but as I said, I found both of them funny.

The second one is funny.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wow...you need to find yourself a girlfriend, man.

They were just jokes.

You can be anal-retentive if it makes you feel better, but interestingly enough it serves to prove that you have no idea how to conceptualize life outside of your angry little world.

Grow up, Mook. I thought you were better than that.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me...

Sometimes I wonder about you, Digi.

I'm going to reply to this when I'm more sober.

Such a chance may never arise. But, if it does, I will respond.

May be...

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me...

seconded

But I gotta admit, that second one made me chuckle

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 02-10-2005).]

What kind of retarted punchline needs that many exclaimation marks? Neither were funny.

And the first joke was a surprisingly accurate representation of the way that some Christians deny C-14 dating because "we dont know how much C-14 was there to start with".

Being stupid really isn't an excuse.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Wow...you need to find yourself a girlfriend, man.

They were just jokes.

You can be anal-retentive if it makes you feel better, but interestingly enough it serves to prove that you have no idea how to conceptualize life outside of your angry little world.

Grow up, Mook. I thought you were better than that.

Nice ad hom; did you learn that in church too?

You know, I was going to be offended due to innacuracy, but that first one is pretty damn funny. Though I don't agree with its intended purpose, nice joke.

Hahaha, I thought it was funny!

I do understand what deptstoremook is saying.

But those jokes can be funny because of that! It is those 'jokes' which aren't funny, but they manage to make you laugh because it was a bad joke. Almost ironic.

It's like this one:

What did one computer engineer say to another computer engineer?

1101010011100110101

Hahaha! = 0

The first one seemed to be too wrong of an anology to be funny. The second one gave me a chuckle though.

Just goes to show how differently we all think.

Some liked the first, and others liked the second.

While that is not a profound observation, it is interesting to note who had a sense of humor, and who didn't.

I don't find myself to be hypocritical in this thread, since I wasn't the one that couldn't laugh at a joke.

Thanks to everyone else that responded.

And Lost, you're too damn funny sometimes ! *winks*

I really wasn't expecting that first joke from you, considering that it could be easily applied to creationism in the creation/evolution debate. After you've seen those sort of arguments and actually have to deal with them, the shock value dims and it's more of a "oh yeah, I've been there" sort of joke.

The second one was funny, though.

Well, I didn't post them to have them analyzed and dissected.

They poke fun at both extremes of the house: Creationism vs. Evolution, and the stigma's that come with being associated with either group.

I thought they were both funny, for different reasons.

If you can't make fun of yourself, who can you make fun of ?

I could draw an analogy between this thread and a certain Biblical character (hint: Lazarus).

LostCause's post was the funniest one in here.