The Stupid Design Theory... or SDT is a
materialist theory that proposes that if things are stupid, then god
didn't do it. Therefore, if there's a lot of stupid stuff, god probably
doesn't exist. From this we can deduce, logically, that the best
evidence for Atheism would be a whole load of stupid stuff.
The theory states that some forms of existence are simply too stupid to have come about by random chance. Ergo, they must have been designed to be stupid by someone at least equally as stupid as the stupidity that has been created, a Stupid Designer like God or Calvin Klein or whomever coaches the New York Mets, and not just any old mediocre designer.
The theory states that some forms of existence are simply too stupid to have come about by random chance. Ergo, they must have been designed to be stupid by someone at least equally as stupid as the stupidity that has been created, a Stupid Designer like God or Calvin Klein or whomever coaches the New York Mets, and not just any old mediocre designer.
Top Scholars Now Embrace Stupid Design Theory
The stupid people
who believe this theory are considered to be highly stupid indeed,
though most of them do not consider themselves as stupid as the stupid
people who believe other equally absurd theories. The existence and
validity of Stupid Design has been proved by the fact that, like
everything else we know to exist, it causes cancer in lab mice. It
causes rodent cancer therefore it is.
One of the 68,983 laws of the theory states that
One of the 68,983 laws of the theory states that
if you hear, say or type the word stupid too many
times,
it starts to sound stupid ...
or if birds nest in Donald Trump's toupee
...that's evidence of extreme stupidity as well.
As is finding a blanket too difficult to operate.
("Snuggies"of any type)
SDT was theorized in the early 1900s as a counter to Yosemite Sam's critique of Religion through intelligent design. The Bacterial flagellum was cited originally as evidence for intelligent design, as it was supposedly irreducibly complex, like cancer, but eventually was used to create SDT, by it's founder, Robert Huxley. The Theory originally was proposed in a paper entitled "Evidence for A Sentience in Ducks and fauna of the Ridiculous Style", which was published originally in the journal, "Discotheques of Science".
Some argue that the designer is not stupid, but merely joking around. This the Prankster Design theory. A whole other stupid subject.
As is finding a blanket too difficult to operate.
("Snuggies"of any type)
SDT was theorized in the early 1900s as a counter to Yosemite Sam's critique of Religion through intelligent design. The Bacterial flagellum was cited originally as evidence for intelligent design, as it was supposedly irreducibly complex, like cancer, but eventually was used to create SDT, by it's founder, Robert Huxley. The Theory originally was proposed in a paper entitled "Evidence for A Sentience in Ducks and fauna of the Ridiculous Style", which was published originally in the journal, "Discotheques of Science".
Some argue that the designer is not stupid, but merely joking around. This the Prankster Design theory. A whole other stupid subject.
Theologists all agree
underlying all belief systems is Stupidity Design Theory
underlying all belief systems is Stupidity Design Theory
Contention
has arisen between two warring factions of Stupid Design advocates as
to whether the Stupid Designer is a Stupid Being who attempted to design
something which he/she thought to be very clever but, because of
his/her inherent stupidity, turned out to be stupid; or the Stupid
Designer is so clever a being that designing stupidity (in a stupid way)
is the pinnacle of his/her clever work and allowing us to discover this
stupidity in such a way that it would throw many a red herring in our
intellectual path - and indeed allow the Stupid Designer to test our own
stupidity - has been the Stupid Designer's ultimate goal.
Outside and objective observers of this debate are able to confirm that the arguments put forth by both factions, as well as the acquaintances of all the factional members, are quite stupid. The debaters refuse to take this point under serious consideration as they know the outside observers to be stupid as well.
Outside and objective observers of this debate are able to confirm that the arguments put forth by both factions, as well as the acquaintances of all the factional members, are quite stupid. The debaters refuse to take this point under serious consideration as they know the outside observers to be stupid as well.
According
to SDT it can be extrapolated that some animals that are seemingly
tending towards an evolutional gain, such as Flying Fish leaning towards
actual flight, may in the distant future become stupid ass things, such
as a pink rubber flying fish that sings.
Success stories of this method of thinking include the zebra, which was hypothesised as a Horse that had stripes, rendering it stupid. It was discovered decades later and hailed as a huge success. The Polar bear was also thought of before it's discovery, but was later discovered to be really dangerous, and so not stupid at all.
Here are some other stupid animals that may exist in the future:
Success stories of this method of thinking include the zebra, which was hypothesised as a Horse that had stripes, rendering it stupid. It was discovered decades later and hailed as a huge success. The Polar bear was also thought of before it's discovery, but was later discovered to be really dangerous, and so not stupid at all.
Here are some other stupid animals that may exist in the future:
- Bats with really big feet
- Cows that just say "Henry" over and over again in a falsetto voice
- Monkeys that rub food on their faces rather than eating it
- A dead badger, covered in tinsel
- A flower shaped like a more edible flower, so that more animals eat it
- Viruses that cause the host to avoid contact with it's own species
- Pigs that have blue and wispy, yet bouffant hair growing from their nostrils.
- Cats with long tails and biscuits instead of eyes.
- Fish that have tits. .
No comments:
Post a Comment