Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   School board set to decide whether their science curriculum will enter the 20th century (with bonus pic of concerned but nonetheless bodacious mother)   (miamiherald.com ) divider line 1003
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

46619 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2008 at 12:30 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1003 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-18 01:14:39 PM  
pvd021:This means, no antibiotics, medication, or any forensic science to those in Florida. If they want it, then they better pray for it and ask their God to answer their prayers. If they're lucky they'll see God performing miracles for them while working under his mysterious ways.

No, you're forgetting "doublethink":

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

-George Orwell, 1984

What is scary is that (as a PhD student) I've seen this attitude toward evolution among some hyper-religious scientists -- even professors in the biological sciences who deal with evolution on a day-to-day basis. ...yet they will deny it to your face if asked. It's scary stuff -- like looking into the eyes of a crazy person and realizing that there is no sense of irony or tongue-in-cheek sarcasm looking back.
 
2008-02-18 01:14:47 PM  
improvius: I'd hit that harder than Bevets hits Ctrl-V.

You just made me chuckle in the middle of Philosophy class.
 
F42
2008-02-18 01:15:01 PM  
2chris2: Bevets is the best worst troll ever. He dominates every thread he posts to, every time. No one can resist his siren song.

Rectified.
 
2008-02-18 01:15:14 PM  
Kome: "Only" is a bullsh*t qualifier to put before "a theory." Yes, all of science leaves itself open to changing if and when new evidence comes along, but nothing in science is "only" a theory if there is empirical evidence to back it up.

Let me clarify that I am not one who says "Evolution is just a theory, so is ID...etc.". Obviously microevolution has tons of evidence. Macroevolution, not as much, but still some. However, at any given point in history, if you asked the brightest minds their opinions on the prevailing theory, they would likely agree. This does not mean it is correct. I am not implying that evolution is incorrect. Seems pretty plausible to me. That does not mean it is a fact. If we can continue gathering evidence, we can approach that sort of understanding, but even then it will be a theory, and will always be.
 
2008-02-18 01:15:19 PM  
If you have an hour to set aside to this issue, please watch The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism (new window).

It's a very articulate argument for why this Intelligent Design nonsense is just appalling. It undermines the whole process of science, which is to challenge long held beliefs only if you have a compelling alternative. If you think ID is anywhere near a compelling alternative to over a hundred and fifty years of research and experiment then you don't have a clear understanding of what evolution is or the way science works.
 
2008-02-18 01:15:22 PM  
Bevets: Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford

The writers could have wanted it to be interpreted literally, but that doesn't mean it actually corresponds to anything in reality. In fact, quite a lot about the Bible does not correspond well to reality. As such, taking it figuratively is pretty much the only rational thing to do. Either way, keep the f*cking thing out of science class.
 
2008-02-18 01:15:40 PM  
I'm highly disappointed with the lack of pics in this thread.
 
2008-02-18 01:15:57 PM  
fark_your_mudder: The Bible is essentially the same for 2,000 years, while science has changed over the years.

Of course it's the same... more parts just continue to be considered "metaphorical" or such. Anybody fired that shell yet?
 
2008-02-18 01:16:11 PM  
sigh. i love when there's a nice controversial article on fark early in my day. it's like reading a book as its being written. thanks for the distraction from work, everyone!
 
2008-02-18 01:16:16 PM  
DarnoKonrad: WaltzingMathilda: Subby,

It's currently the 21st century.

School board set to decide whether their science curriculum will enter the 20th 19th century (w/bonus pic of concerned but nonetheless bodacious mother)

/the joke. you're missing it.


oops. good work.

/considered it was a joke. abandoned it because of my cynicism
 
2008-02-18 01:16:35 PM  
Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Ahh, but God didn't put pen to paper, not to mention the original was not in English, which leaves room for interpretation when translated. Since the Bible was recorded by man, I don't believe it is perfect, and certainly not entirely literal.

Not perfect. Not literal. Subject to changes for political reasons. Subject to errors introduced during translations.

Yeah, sounds like the perfect document to base a religion on.

Listen, if you want to go around believing in the myths of a bunch of Bronze Age nomadic sheep-farkers, that's fine. But don't teach their tribal superstitions in a farking goddamn science class.


Holy fark. Pay attention, asshat. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I support ID or teaching anything besides evolution in science class.
 
2008-02-18 01:16:54 PM  
amoricanCrowe: Life beginning at conception sounds pretty scientifically sound to me.

All trolling aside, is it so wrong to believe a superior being/force created some stuff and it has since evolved.

/diplomacy FTW!


Having faith and "believing" that is fine. It's when you try and push it as a scientific theory that I'm going to have problems. I also disagree with the belief, and think all known evidence points to special creation not being necessary but your welcome to your own personal faith and belief all you want.

Unfortunately I think that adopting a stance of accommodation will do more harm then good in the long run for science. It is basically conceding the fight, throwing our hands up and saying "we give up, we don't want to deal with this sit anymore".

frostcrow: We don't know shiat about science but we fancy ourselves as scientists" commenting on them

There are actually a fair number of people on Fark, especially in these threads, who actually are scientists, grad students, or at least have an undergraduate education in one of the sciences.

fark_your_mudder: The problem is not evolution, but Evolutionism

Evolutionism actually used to have a pretty specific meaning, and it isn't the one you're using. Generally evolutionism is supposed to refer to pre-Darwinian philosophical ideas about evolution, diversity of life, etc. This effigy the Creationists construct to attack is not evolution, nor is it even Evolutionism except as they have redefined it. Frankly I get sort of upset when people redefine terms to try and gain some sort of underhanded victory.

pvd021: Would love these Bible thumpers try to explain to me why anaerobic organisms still exist and where they were derived from. This prokaryotes

I recently have taken the track of trying to question their knowledge of biological diversity to gauge where their biases are at looking at the natural world, strangely I never seem to get an answer although I am fairly certain I have an idea which way they will lean. Simple questions really:

1)Where do you think more biological diversity lies? In the Metazoans (multi-cellular animals) or among the Eubacteria (regular old bacteria)? Do you think the Plantae have more in common with Fungi or with Metazoans? What about Fungi with Amoeba or Plantae?

2)What do you actually know about the mitochondria and their diversity? Do you think all mitochondria are the same as the ones you learn about in high school? IE are all mitochondria essentially the same as those found in humans, dogs, cats, etc?

I'm still waiting on even the hint of an answer. Ideally I would want them to give me an answer without just going to goggle and trying to tell me what they think I want to hear. I want an accurate gauge of their knowledge of biological diversity. Hell I think even a lot of non-Creationists would be surprised at some of the answers from even these two questions.
 
2008-02-18 01:16:56 PM  
www.global-air.com
 
2008-02-18 01:17:12 PM  
Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Not really. I have a degree in biology,

Let me guess: you have a GED in biology.

FAIL

Fail, how?


If you have to ask....
 
2008-02-18 01:17:16 PM  
Confabulat: Yet they still have no problem eating shrimp.

Mmmmmmmm, seafood.

Pork too.........

I need a salmon and bacon sammich.
 
2008-02-18 01:17:16 PM  
fark_your_mudder:
don't think ID is valid in a science class, or anywhere else, really. But as you know, anything in science is only a theory, and at some time may be disproven. Might we have it right? Sure. Could it be wrong? Possibly.

Agreed, but keep in mind it would only be replaced by another scientific theory
 
2008-02-18 01:17:55 PM  
fark_your_mudder: Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Not really. I have a degree in biology,

Let me guess: you have a GED in biology.

FAIL

Fail, how?

If you have to ask....


It's not my fault you don't know what I'm referring to.

I think it was SkinnyHead who claimed to have a degree in something (law, maybe): he had a GED in law. So I was making fun of you by comparing you to him, asking if you had a GED in biology. And now you've ruined all the fun of the joke, dickbag.
 
2008-02-18 01:18:06 PM  
Mnemia: Just accept the Bible as a historical document written by people and there is no problem. You can even say that it was "inspired" by God and written by people (like the Catholic Church does) and there is still no problem. It's only when you claim that it's completely factually accurate that it looks silly.

Could not agree with you more.
 
2008-02-18 01:18:14 PM  
fark_your_mudder: Kome: "Only" is a bullsh*t qualifier to put before "a theory." Yes, all of science leaves itself open to changing if and when new evidence comes along, but nothing in science is "only" a theory if there is empirical evidence to back it up.

Let me clarify that I am not one who says "Evolution is just a theory, so is ID...etc.". Obviously microevolution has tons of evidence. Macroevolution, not as much, but still some. However, at any given point in history, if you asked the brightest minds their opinions on the prevailing theory, they would likely agree. This does not mean it is correct. I am not implying that evolution is incorrect. Seems pretty plausible to me. That does not mean it is a fact. If we can continue gathering evidence, we can approach that sort of understanding, but even then it will be a theory, and will always be.


1) Define microevolution and macroevolution.
2) Just because it is not 100% correct doesn't mean it isn't the most correct answer we currently have
 
2008-02-18 01:18:47 PM  

Also, scanning through this thread (to ignore all things Bevets) has proven an excellent source of related memes. Thanks, and here's Family Guy to comment:


img219.imageshack.us

 
2008-02-18 01:19:21 PM  
F42:

"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deuteronomy 12:32


Tobias
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
1 Machabees
2 Machabees
 
2008-02-18 01:19:29 PM  
The Bible was the world's biggest writing contest. That much was proven by historical evidence. People submitted their works, and a council of "religious experts" of the time SELECTED THEIR FAVORITES. It's not as if God used lightning to carve the Bible into a big rock for all to see.
 
2008-02-18 01:19:48 PM  
Gee can't we have Phrenology and Astrology taught in science class as well? Teach the controversy and all.
 
2008-02-18 01:20:18 PM  
F42: The bible states that it is the true word of a perfect being, and says specifically that every word of it is absolutely true.

Most people believe that the Bible, when it was written, was true. The only problem is that we don't have the originals and it has since been translated through a few different languages by man (who is fallible) and that is why there are flaws.
 
2008-02-18 01:20:18 PM  
fark_your_mudder: Mnemia: Because the Bible IS a lie?

Fail until your proof is presented.


Looks like I was right on time.
 
2008-02-18 01:20:23 PM  
Fart_Machine: Gee can't we have Phrenology and Astrology taught in science class as well? Teach the controversy and all.

members.aol.com
 
2008-02-18 01:20:23 PM  
Bevets: Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford

That quote is a flat out lie. Here* is a list of Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation. Many of those are professors, including both Behe and Dembski. You might want to take this quote out of your arsenal.

* - Can't get link to work since Fark hates Geocities. http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/NotableOldEarthCreatinists.htm
(Copy and Paste)
 
2008-02-18 01:21:08 PM  
fifthhorseman: "You are not a unique and precious snowflake. You are part of the all-singing all-dancing compost heap of life."

Until we realize this, we will fail as a species, and are destined to join the dinosaur and dodo. I posit that no belief has harmed humanity (and the earth) more than seeing itself as a special case exempt from the rules that govern the rest of life.


Yep. If a close star went supernova, we would be atomized just like the rest of the planet's surface.
 
2008-02-18 01:21:16 PM  
F42: You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

That's a reference to law. It probably dates to when the laws were kept purely orally, as opposed to when they got written down, as they did in Leviticus. Also there's the slight problem that the Bible is a compilation assembled through some editorial work.

DarnoKonrad: That's why. Catholicism doesn't teach biblical inerrancy.

bingo, that variation in views on the subject among Christians being something a lot of people either overlook or aren't aware of. Also it's fun watching fundamentalists claim the literal inerrant word view as being the proper original view. The world's Catholics and Orthodox find that amusing.
 
2008-02-18 01:21:42 PM  
I DEMAND THAT EVERY CREATION STORY OF EVERY RELIGION IN THE WORLD BE TAUGHT TO ALL STUDENTS AS FACTS.


Just to be, you know, fair.
Wouldn't want to offend anyone.
 
2008-02-18 01:22:25 PM  
Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Not really. I have a degree in biology,

Let me guess: you have a GED in biology.

FAIL

Fail, how?


My guess is that a GED is a General Educational Development test ... i.e., the equivalent of a high school diploma

you don't get a GED in anything...it's not like a major ... it's a farking basic high school education

sorry, fark_your_mudder, for explaining that
 
F42
2008-02-18 01:23:23 PM  
fark_your_mudder: I am not implying that evolution is incorrect. Seems pretty plausible to me. That does not mean it is a fact.

Evolution is an observed fact: Older organisms were less developed and newer, more complex life forms that appeared over time, building over previously existing structures.

The theory of evolution explains how this happened.
 
2008-02-18 01:23:44 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Gregory F. Stuart: fark_your_mudder: Not really. I have a degree in biology,

Let me guess: you have a GED in biology.

FAIL

Fail, how?

My guess is that a GED is a General Educational Development test ... i.e., the equivalent of a high school diploma

you don't get a GED in anything...it's not like a major ... it's a farking basic high school education

sorry, fark_your_mudder, for explaining that


Uh... It's a joke. SkinnyHead once claimed in a thread to have a GED in law.
 
2008-02-18 01:24:36 PM  
I really can't believe that this is the 21st friggin' century and we're still even discussing this crap.
 
2008-02-18 01:24:48 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER:Yep. If a close star went supernova, we would be atomized just like the rest of the planet's surface.

jumk.de

/Eta Carinae
//not "close" (1000+ ly if I recall), but it's absolutely huge, as will be the resulting supernova
///wouldn't vaporize the planet, but could produce a nice pulse of gamma radiation that would fark with the atmosphere
 
2008-02-18 01:24:55 PM  
Kome: 1) Define microevolution and macroevolution.
2) Just because it is not 100% correct doesn't mean it isn't the most correct answer we currently have


When I refer to microevolution, I'm talking about short-scale changes, such as within a species like mutations, phenotypic changes, etc. Macroevolution is long-term effects such as speciation and form change, etc. The reason we don't have as much evidence for that is because it takes a long time, and we haven't been studying long enough to see them occurring with any significance. The lack of alot of transitional forms also needs to be bridged. As far as your #2, I'm not disagreeing.
 
2008-02-18 01:24:59 PM  
WhyteRaven74: bingo, that variation in views on the subject among Christians being something a lot of people either overlook or aren't aware of. Also it's fun watching fundamentalists claim the literal inerrant word view as being the proper original view. The world's Catholics and Orthodox find that amusing.

Yep, this whole tread is full of that kind of thinking -- on both sides. Religion is just one of those things that seems obvious, until you actually learn what other's believe -- the only constant is that no one agrees on anything.
 
2008-02-18 01:25:08 PM  
fark_your_mudder: Kome: "Only" is a bullsh*t qualifier to put before "a theory." Yes, all of science leaves itself open to changing if and when new evidence comes along, but nothing in science is "only" a theory if there is empirical evidence to back it up.

Let me clarify that I am not one who says "Evolution is just a theory, so is ID...etc.". Obviously microevolution has tons of evidence. Macroevolution, not as much, but still some. However, at any given point in history, if you asked the brightest minds their opinions on the prevailing theory, they would likely agree. This does not mean it is correct. I am not implying that evolution is incorrect. Seems pretty plausible to me. That does not mean it is a fact. If we can continue gathering evidence, we can approach that sort of understanding, but even then it will be a theory, and will always be.


No offense, but why should you or I or anyone outside the field of biology set the rule for when a biological theory is plausible. Is there an arbitrary amount of data that must be collected before you consider something more than "plausible"? If so, what is it? You don't think scientists have been trying to figure out if macroevolution is correct or not since it was first posited??

You're buying into a false dichotomy.
 
2008-02-18 01:25:24 PM  
Religion is stupid.
Smoking cigarettes is stupid.
Abuse of drugs and alcohol is stupid.
Gambling is stupid.
Physical inactivity is stupid.
Overeating is stupid.

I am guilty of >1 of the above, and am aware of it. Does that make me stupid and unworthy of drawing breath and living my life?
 
2008-02-18 01:25:35 PM  
I love these threads. really.
 
2008-02-18 01:25:43 PM  
Bevets [TotalFark]
This is going to be a little bit trollie...

And so, in the matter of education, Christians do not dispute the right of the teacher to be agnostic or atheistic, but Christians do deny the right of agnostics and atheists to use the public school as a forum for the teaching of their doctrines.

Then don't send your children to public schools. All of the sciences, math, language, history, and social studies are equally in the realm of the "atheist doctrines".
The Bible directly contradicts thermodynamics, do you want that removed? Gravity is directly belied as well. Most of the basic principles of geometry contradict the bible too. So does history.
The public school system was created as a place where children could get a basic education. They were made so that children could learn at least a few useful pieces of information. This information has to be demonstratively true.

The Bible has in many places been excluded from the schools on the ground that religion should not be taught by those paid by public taxation.

This is a blatant lie.
It has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with authority figures directly lying to impressionable children in an organized manner.

If this doctrine is sound, what right have the enemies of religion to teach irreligion in the public schools?

None. This is why "irreligion" is not taught in public schools.

If the Bible cannot be taught, why would Christian taxpayers permit the teaching of guesses that make the Bible a lie?

I would hope that it would be because they are coming out of their multi-millennium ignorance and seeing that we all live much better lives when our understanding is composed of facts which we can all verify and witness with our own senses.
(Side note: Bevets just admitted that the Bible is a lie)

A teacher might just as well write over the door of his room, "Leave Christianity behind you, all ye who enter here," as to ask his students to accept an hypothesis directly and irreconcilably antagonistic to the Bible.

Or he could write "Leave all beliefs that cannot be proven repeatably, in single or group, by any properly equipped person via the use of the five senses" and be done with it. This would do just as good a job at excluding all religions and he wouldn't have to bother singling out just one.

Our opponents are not fair.

Your opponents are far more interested in being correct than fair.
In fact, they are only your opponents because you insist on continuing in your lies despite all of the evidence, which you can and have witnessed yourself, being against your position.

When we find fault with the teaching go Darwin's unsupported hypothesis, they talk about Copernicus and Galileo and ask whether we shall exclude science and return to the dark ages.

The reason these men are brought up is because they demonstrate how the religious will persecute and do violence against rational men when confronted with evidence that they cannot refute.
They also help to show that over time, even the religious will eventually give in and accept the demonstrable truth as true.

Their evasion is a confession of weakness.

There is no evasion. You have shown no evidence of evasion, instead you have given a perfectly valid metaphor (or would that be similie?), said it was used as an argument, and then come to a conclusion unrelated to your statement.

We do not ask for the exclusion of any scientific truth, but we do protest against an atheist teacher being allowed to blow his guess in the face of the student.

You're intentionally twisting words. There are no "scientific truths" only theories which have been tested and validated enough times to be elevated to the status of theories. We then observe theories and treat them as "close enough to true" until or unless we find a theory which is "closer to true".
Theories are nothing more and nothing less than a way to accurately predict the outcome of an event.

The Christians who want to teach religion in their schools furnish the money for denominational institutions. If atheists want to teach atheism, why do they not build their own schools and employ their own teachers?

That would be because atheists are not interested in teaching atheism. Instead, we have "rationalists" who wish to teach "useful and verifiable" things. The closest we have yet been able to come is the university system, which is private and privately funded. However we use the public school system to give children a very basic understanding of the things which they will use to properly predict the outcome of events in their world.

If a man really believes that he has brute blood in him, he can teach that to his children at home or he can send them to atheistic schools, where his children will not be in danger of losing their brute philosophy, but why should he be allowed to deal with other people's children as if the were little monkeys?

If a man really believes that it hurts when you get punched in the face, he can teach that to his children at home or he can sent them to atheistic schools, where his children will not be in danger of losing their empiricism, but why should he be allowed to deal with other people's children as if they suffer pain when they're punched in the face.
 
2008-02-18 01:25:46 PM  
Gregory F. Stuart: Uh... It's a joke. SkinnyHead once claimed in a thread to have a GED in law.

Once? He's claimed it many times.
 
2008-02-18 01:25:56 PM  
Is this the thread where we propose facts that are be voted on democratically? Because I need more people to sign my petition stating that 1+1=purple. Eventually, we can lobby school boards to make this important change.
 
2008-02-18 01:26:09 PM  
Kome: The writers could have wanted it to be interpreted literally, but that doesn't mean it actually corresponds to anything in reality. In fact, quite a lot about the Bible does not correspond well to reality. As such, taking it figuratively is pretty much the only rational thing to do. Either way, keep the f*cking thing out of science class.

I really doubt that the authors of Genesis truly thought that that was literally what happened. I suspect that it was part poetry, part instruction manual, and part their best guess as to how the world might have come into existence. I highly doubt they would be so arrogant as to actually believe that they knew exactly how their God created the universe. The arrogance/stupidity came later when people started misinterpreting it and viewing it outside its historical context. The authors of the Bible were clearly wrong, but I suspect they knew they were wrong at least to a degree.
 
2008-02-18 01:26:40 PM  
CigaretteSmokingMan:I really can't believe that this is the 21st friggin' century and we're still even discussing this crap.

Yes, these evolution threads call for a huge facepalm.

img233.imageshack.us
 
2008-02-18 01:26:44 PM  
So are the creationists supporting the teaching of Scientology in schools? It is an alternate theory.
 
2008-02-18 01:26:51 PM  
Kome: Gregory F. Stuart: Uh... It's a joke. SkinnyHead once claimed in a thread to have a GED in law.

Once? He's claimed it many times.


He has? So how come these retards don't know what I'm talking about when I say "GED in biology"?
 
2008-02-18 01:26:52 PM  
tortilla burger: People submitted their works, and a council of "religious experts" of the time three centuries later SELECTED THEIR FAVORITES.


FTFY
 
2008-02-18 01:27:00 PM  
IT SEEMED SO PLAUSABLEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
 
2008-02-18 01:27:29 PM  
F42: Evolution is an observed fact

This is, and only can be, incorrect. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is a scientific fact. Even if there was, evolution would not be on the top of the list.

F42: Older organisms were less developed and newer, more complex life forms that appeared over time, building over previously existing structures.

The theory of evolution BEST ATTEMPTS TO explains how this happened.
 
Displayed 50 of 1003 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report