One of my old favorites is the fishing spider. I grew up wrongly calling them wolf spiders. We played with them and loved throwing them on each other, which freaks you out even if you are not afraid of them.
The wolf spiders here do not get nearly as large as the fishing spiders. I have the fishing spiders under my house keeping the insect populations to a minimum. My wife has always hated spiders, but I have managed to desensitize her over the forty-five years we have been together.
1 Like
As well as Theraphosa leblondi, which is a Mygalomorph spider, thereâs a giant Araneomorph spider, namely Heteropoda maxima from Laos. 30 cm leg span. Itâs related to the Huntsman spiders that live in Australia, and belongs to the same Family - the Sparassidae.
Thereâs a nice YouTube video featuring two German scientists travelling to Laos to find specimens of this spider. A must watch for everyone here 
2 Likes
Its a natural Darwinian selection process. Humans have been here for 65,000 years give or take a decade or two. If you piss off a funnel web, crocodile, or a taipan you will die.
If you wrestle a kangaroo, chances are you come second with serious injuries.
And do not, ever ever, insult an emu. We fought an actual war with those critters and they beat us.
Same goes for everything else including the big reptiles. Donât fuck with them.
The wildlife in Australia just wants to be left the fuck alone. Bring tourist ignorance and pay the Darwin Award fee, simples.
The old joke was always âdonât sharks worry you? Nah, the crocs eat 'em allâ
3 Likes
I know creationism is very important to Christians like you. But it is not important to some like minded Atheists like myself. I do not care where we came from. I do not spend my time thinking about it or obsessing over it. It is often the very last thing I think about.
I do not believe there is a factual answer to that million dollar question at this time. Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism (religion in general) just have the âfillerâ answers. You donât accept the answers of the other religions just like I reject your religious beliefs. Because religion is very fictional to me. It gives no evidence.
I would say that the big bang theory is more compelling of an answer to me than confusing mythology that is made up of countless stories from thousands of religions dreamed up by humans that one or more Sky Fathers or Sky Mothers created the universe. I think all religious stories are absolute bullshit. They come off silly and donât answer much of anything. They just leave behind more questions.
3 Likes
Wouldnât a science forum being a more sensible venue for such a question? Why bring it to an atheist forum?
3 Likes
Or he could learn to read.
2 Likes
This guy likes to play chicken with them.
1 Like
Adrenaline junkies, you canât ask them to be rational. 
1 Like
I assume you are trying to provoke the obvious response:
For the theist to gain any credibility, the theist must demonstrate in, even the most miniscule way, the possibility of the existence of their god.
Atheists Kryptonite? You mean like the earth was flat? The universe is only 6,000 years old and the thousands of other things we didnât know that we now do and can prove. (You know, the ones theists no longer challenge.)
So why DNA? The answer to that is, itâs all theists have left to debate about, all other arguments have been scientifically debunked.
Have you ever heard the phrase: âA drowning man will clutch onto any stawâ? This is you clutching at your last straw.
And, I guess, you choose to remain ignorant as to how close we are to proving abiogenesis. (Oh and DNA isnât related to proof of abiogenesis which is your real goal.)
It is interesting to me that almost all funding to prove the truth of evolution and abiogenesis is funded by theists and yet no theist is funding anyone to prove them false. Why is that? Because, people like you, know you canât.
Hereâs a simple fact of science you should digest: If there is only one possible and sustainable theory to solve a problem, then that theory, regardless of how unlikely it may seem, is the answer.
And therein lies your problem: Until you can come up with a sustainable theory to compete with or overtake abiogenesis, asbiogenesis will remain the only sustainable theory and therefore a truth merely waiting to be proved.
Hint: Atheists donât need to prove abiogenesis to gain credibility, their credibility comes from there being no other sustainable theory to compete with abiogenesis.
1 Like
Please use the quote function, so that we have some clue which post out of the 89 in this thread you are talking about!
Wow, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and nothing more. Abiogenesis is not an accepted scientific theory, and what you are using there is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is also a false dichotomy fallacy. I have no idea what you even mean by âatheists gaining credibilityâ, theism is a belief and therefore the affirmation of a claim, thus it carries a burden of proof. Atheism is not a claim, though some atheists make claims, and those claims also carry a burden of proof.
4 Likes
I fear you are just talking over our cheery interlocutorâs ability to comprehend. He just 'KNOWS" too much to be bothered with nuances like the laws of logic or syllogistic integrity. But I am proud of you. You did get him to admit that he could not say for 100% that there was no God. That was certainly a nudge in the right direction.
2 Likes
Credibility with whom, exactly? And WHY would I ever feel the need to prove abiogenesis in the first place? Iâm not a scientist.
5 Likes
I think it was just poorly worded, and he meant âfor atheism to gain credibilityâ, and not âfor atheists to gain credibilityâ, either way it is poor reasoning, itâs the same kind of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy we see aggressively used by some religious apologists, who donât realise they are making an irrational argument.
2 Likes
I didnât know I needed credibility to ask for evidence of the God thing. No wonder I have never gotten a good answer. I have to have credibility before the theists are going to answer me. 1. Step one: Go to Church. 2. Step two, Stop reading the bible and listen to what the preacher says. 3. Step three, pray to God and mention Jesus as many times as I can remember to do so, throughout the day. 4. Step 4. Begin witnessing to all my friends. 5. Give a lot of money to the church so they will recognize my credibility. 6. Then I can ask the question? OH NO! #6 says, If you question God, all credibility is lost.
Awwww Fuck! What do I do now?
4 Likes
Nothing, his claim was risible of course. If I base belief on how credible my response is to those who hold a subjective belief, Iâd still have literally tens of thousands of deities humans have created to choose from. So much for Pascalâs wager.
I marvel that theists who dishonestly peddle the vague unfalsifiable notion of deity, rather than honestly addressing evidence for the specific one they believe is real, see any value in such nonsensical mendacity?
A bit like pretending an extant but non-descript unicorn, is a far more credible notion than a unicorn called Kevin, that likes collecting stamps, painting in water colours, and salsa dancing at the weekends.
1 Like
Wait! What? you have met Kevin?? His water colours of rainbows and fairies is magicalâŚand MAN can he dance!
Edit (anything is probably, possibly perhaps)
1 Like
But, but, but⌠an extant but nondescript unicorn, âISâ a far more credible notion than a unicorn called Kevin, that likes collecting stamps, painting in water colors, and salsa dancing at the weekends.
Kevin is such an odd name for unicorns. Most people who want to see a unicorn will visit the islands of Ireland or Scotland. Iâve heard they may be indigenous to the Brittians and a few rear their heads in North America. But to find one named Kevin, salsa dancing on weekends, who also likes collecting stamps and painting in water colors is a tall order. There is a Carlos, the finger painting unicorn, in Cuba, but I hear he canât dance a lick. Antonio, the Brazilian dancing unicorn can dance the samba, but even if they could teach him to Salsa, his name would still be Antonio.
Now I could take any of these unicorns, spray paint them silver and teach them to stamp collect, Salsa, and paint with water colors, but the effort is not worth proving my point here, and the cost of having their names officially changed is prohibitive. But, simply bumping into a common, ordinary, non-discript unicorn, washed up on shore at a local beach after a night of bar hopping, drugs, and illicit interactions with women of the night. Now that is an easy find. How can you even assert finding a nondescript unicorn is more credible than one with the talents you have mentioned?
Oh⌠I get it⌠All unicorns have descriptions⌠Itâs a trick question isnât it! I didnât just fall out of the monkey cage yesterday! I see what you are doing.
2 Likes
Not poorly written poorly comprehended.
Actually, I meant atheists. Mmmmmm, I wonder what group atheism represents?
Tell me, if atheism gains credibility who does it gain credibility for? Oh, yes, atheists so it means atheists gain credibility individually and as a group.
Explain how âpoor reasoningâ even remotely applies given that abiogenesis is one of the most remote reasons atheists claim to be atheists. Theists give us all the evidence we need.
I guess you were referring to yourself when you made that comment.
Anyway⌠Keep trying.
that phrase is gibberish
In the full context of the comment, prove it.