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.

(WorldNetDaily)   Humans have been to space while chimps just sling poo, therefore evolution is bogus. Now buy this book   (wnd.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, straw man, scientific laws, Cell Biology, evolution, Carl Gallups, magic, superstitions  
•       •       •

3879 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2012 at 9:05 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



407 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-06-12 03:58:25 PM  
If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin
 
2012-06-12 03:59:13 PM  
Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.
 
2012-06-12 04:00:38 PM  
Wangiss:

Homo Sapiens NTTAWWT
 
2012-06-12 04:00:50 PM  

Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.


Curses! I'll get you next time!
 
2012-06-12 04:04:31 PM  
I just sang "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" with all the notes sung as "derp"
 
2012-06-12 04:10:24 PM  

Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.


Chimps BEAT us into space, therefore Dr. Zaius is president and "Mighty Joe Young" wins Best Picture every year.
 
2012-06-12 04:11:56 PM  
Interesting. I can't help but notice that the author (Carl Gallups) has no scientific background at all.
Seems legit.
 
2012-06-12 04:13:31 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Chimps BEAT us into space, therefore Dr. Zaius is president and "Mighty Joe Young" wins Best Picture every year.


27.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-12 04:13:45 PM  
Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.
 
2012-06-12 04:20:01 PM  

vernonFL: Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.


And cats are smart enough to know not to go into space to begin with.

Ergo, cats rule.
 
2012-06-12 04:29:43 PM  
"The author of a newly released "The Magic Man in the Sky" book is debunking the oft-claimed position of evolutionists that their beliefs are based on science."

GUYS

GUYS CALL 911

I'M- I'M HAVING A HEART ATTACK
 
2012-06-12 04:31:50 PM  
askwhy.co.uk

Damn those anti-evolution monoliths.
 
2012-06-12 04:38:51 PM  
Evolution has to be a fact

/because there's certainly nothing intelligent about our design
//and who would plan THIS?
 
2012-06-12 04:39:53 PM  
consider the evolutionist's proposition that all of life, all twenty million species of life and all their subsystems and sub-sub systems, originated (says the atheist) from an accidental, random, unpurposed, unplanned conglomeration of chemicals conjoining in a mystical, magical pool of mud, billions of years ago," said author Carl Gallups.

"This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!


Silly WND. It took over 150 years for that "mud" to spawn life. Probably about 250 or even 300 years!
 
2012-06-12 04:40:15 PM  
"There is no 'supreme being' in heaven who reached down to create life on Earth or human beings. Nor is that being answering prayers. There is no soul. There is no everlasting life. Science tells us all of these things with complete clarity. God is imaginary."

Bullshiat. Scientists don't even pursue those lines of investigation.

Just once, I'd like to hear from a Creationist who actually understands science. But, if they did they probably wouldn't be Creationists.
 
2012-06-12 04:51:13 PM  
I love this exchange in the comments:

JeromeTop 50
This is a great post from John Doe, I am going to repost it.

It is God the almighty that is behind all that and created it so perfect.
Should we also thank God for the perfection of cancer cells, autism, cerebral palsy, polio, malaria, meningitis, spina bifida, tetanus, and a whole host of other diseases and infections?
What about parasites, tapeworms, ticks, fleas, lice, and poisonous plants?
How about earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, flash floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, droughts, pestilence, land slides, and other natural disasters?
Are these too a sign of God's perfect creation?

Like Reply
6 hours ago

whoknows99
oh gee no one has EVER thought of ANYTHING so profound...wow...delusional..I mean seriously you darwiniacs post the same old BS talking points...ever hear of the fall?

and how does evolution account for such things? hmmm???
 
2012-06-12 04:52:15 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: //and who would plan THIS?


Have you SEEN old man scrotum? Jesus christ. If there IS a god, he trained at the H. R. Giger school of design.

Or maybe it's the other way around, man. Whoa, who's hands are these?
 
2012-06-12 04:52:22 PM  
I don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics either!
 
2012-06-12 05:26:09 PM  

WI241TH: I love this exchange in the comments:

JeromeTop 50
This is a great post from John Doe, I am going to repost it.

It is God the almighty that is behind all that and created it so perfect.
Should we also thank God for the perfection of cancer cells, autism, cerebral palsy, polio, malaria, meningitis, spina bifida, tetanus, and a whole host of other diseases and infections?
What about parasites, tapeworms, ticks, fleas, lice, and poisonous plants?
How about earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, flash floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, droughts, pestilence, land slides, and other natural disasters?
Are these too a sign of God's perfect creation?

Like Reply
6 hours ago

whoknows99
oh gee no one has EVER thought of ANYTHING so profound...wow...delusional..I mean seriously you darwiniacs post the same old BS talking points...ever hear of the fall?

and how does evolution account for such things? hmmm???


i105.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-12 05:54:35 PM  

Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.


I'm sure WND would freak if someone posted that there.
 
2012-06-12 05:59:41 PM  
I'll just leave this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_the_Chimp
 
2012-06-12 06:12:38 PM  
I had a sixth grade teacher who told us evolution wasn't real because if it was monkeys would keep having babies. That made about as much sense as this guy.
 
2012-06-12 06:15:24 PM  

Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.


Dogs made it first. Therefore Dogs are superior to humans.
 
2012-06-12 06:23:12 PM  
Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

I'm guessing it is going to rather easy to refudiate anything in this book.
 
2012-06-12 06:25:01 PM  
img99.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-12 06:25:08 PM  
Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

So this book includes God's origin story?
 
2012-06-12 06:25:39 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

I'm guessing it is going to rather easy to refudiate anything in this book.


You'd have to buy it first, I guess. But don't do that, because something tells me that is all a part of his wicked plan.
 
2012-06-12 06:31:16 PM  
He doesn't sound very faithful to me.

Unless it's all a scam and he wrote one of those quickie celebrity "bios" with lots of "God's friend said 'God had raging acne all through high school. He had to take Mother Nature to the prom, but He swore that once he spent that summer in Canada he'd be able to smite chicks all over."
 
2012-06-12 06:32:04 PM  
Whole lotta stupid right there.

While I am an atheist and therefore one of the "the beginnings of life did occur through a bunch of happy accidents occurring over BILLIONS of years" guys...

a) even I believe that we have a "soul" of sorts
b) most of the truly devout people I know(not the screaming fundies) are in the "God set the process in motion, and evolution took over, hell, it's God, you don't know the whole plan"

This guy is an idiot
 
2012-06-12 06:34:08 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: consider the evolutionist's proposition that all of life, all twenty million species of life and all their subsystems and sub-sub systems, originated (says the atheist) from an accidental, random, unpurposed, unplanned conglomeration of chemicals conjoining in a mystical, magical pool of mud, billions of years ago," said author Carl Gallups.

"This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!

Silly WND. It took over 150 years for that "mud" to spawn life. Probably about 250 or even 300 years!


Despite the constant, deliberate, repeated attempts of humans to recombine their DNA to produce new humans, the magical mixture of DNA that was Adam has never been observed or replicated, therefore there was no progenitor human, and humans don't exist.
 
2012-06-12 06:34:15 PM  

Gwendolyn: I had a sixth grade teacher who told us evolution wasn't real because if it was monkeys would keep having babies. That made about as much sense as this guy.



wat

That doesn't even make sense in a nonsense kind of way. Did he think that monkeys don't reproduce? Where did he think they come from?
 
2012-06-12 06:56:02 PM  
Even morons who are Bible literalists believe in evolution. If you believe in something as ridiculous as the Noah's Ark story you believe that Noah gathered each "type" of animal. Meaning one type of dog, one type of lizard, etc. The mechanism under which each type turned out different animals such as coyote & beagle, iguana & alligator would be...wait for it....evolution.
 
2012-06-12 06:57:09 PM  
WNDFaith, when a regular cup of WND just doesn't have enough kick to get you through your day.
 
2012-06-12 07:00:09 PM  
It doesn't matter what you believe.
It doesn't matter how hard you pray.
It doesn't matter if every person in the world decides that human kind emerged from the radioactive poop of a flying space turtle.

Evolution is independent of belief. It has happened, it is happening, and it will continue to happen and none of us can stop it. We can only hope to tweak the parameters.
 
2012-06-12 07:05:10 PM  
TFA: "This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. E. coli long-term evolution experiment^
 
2012-06-12 07:14:04 PM  
Also, Origins Of Us - Brains (BBC). Is a good starter to understanding the differences between humans and primates. Maybe had the author done some basic research they could have edimacated themselves a little better and not looked like an idiot.
 
2012-06-12 07:21:42 PM  

Mentat:
It doesn't matter if every person in the world decides that human kind emerged from the radioactive poop of a flying space turtle.


"Decide?" I suppose you "decide" that the sun will rise or the tide will come in? As an Orthodox CoprophaGameranian I find your oppression oppressive, oppressor!!
 
2012-06-12 07:29:58 PM  
www.explosm.net
 
2012-06-12 07:35:05 PM  
Chimps have territorial wars.

Then there is this

www.evolutionpages.com

I didn't see this derpy sign down by Roseburg last time I was down there. Which ironically shows how we probably share a common ancestor...
 
2012-06-12 07:36:56 PM  
celluloidzombie.com
 
2012-06-12 07:41:17 PM  
Whoops, the derpy sign that ironically could be construed to show common ancestry didn't link

www.whoisyourcreator.com
 
2012-06-12 07:43:28 PM  
WND is proof that God does not exist.
 
2012-06-12 07:44:09 PM  

Wangiss: If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin


Homo sapiens...wise man.

Homo Post-Darwinis...Unnaturally selected man.
 
2012-06-12 07:47:11 PM  
I read through that who stupid article, and all I saw was an argument from personal incredulity.

That is, because Carl Gallups can't conceive of something, a god must have done it.

I also loved this gem from Gallups: "this notion that somehow the Christian is dedicated to a belief in a magic man in the sky is nothing more than a straw man argument fallaciously set up by the atheist. My book systematically exposes and demolishes this straw man argument."

I would love -- just LOVE -- to hear him explain how that argument is a straw man. I'd love to hear how he "systematically exposes and demolishes" it.

You can dress up your theology all you want, Pastor Gallups -- but if you believe in creationism, you believe in magic. If you believe in a god, you believe in a magic man. Maybe he's not "in the sky." Maybe he's on Titan. Maybe he's in France. Maybe he's not even a "he." But, your view of our existence absolutely hinges on magic. To argue otherwise is patently absurd.
 
2012-06-12 07:49:03 PM  

I_C_Weener: Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin

Homo sapiens...wise man.



Homo Sopranos...Wise Guy
 
2012-06-12 07:50:06 PM  

eraser8: I read through that who stupid article, and all I saw was an argument from personal incredulity.

That is, because Carl Gallups can't conceive of something, a god must have done it.

I also loved this gem from Gallups: "this notion that somehow the Christian is dedicated to a belief in a magic man in the sky is nothing more than a straw man argument fallaciously set up by the atheist. My book systematically exposes and demolishes this straw man argument."

I would love -- just LOVE -- to hear him explain how that argument is a straw man. I'd love to hear how he "systematically exposes and demolishes" it.

You can dress up your theology all you want, Pastor Gallups -- but if you believe in creationism, you believe in magic. If you believe in a god, you believe in a magic man. Maybe he's not "in the sky." Maybe he's on Titan. Maybe he's in France. Maybe he's not even a "he." But, your view of our existence absolutely hinges on magic. To argue otherwise is patently absurd.


Clearly the words of a man possessed by demons.
 
2012-06-12 07:50:26 PM  
evolution is the absence of rational thought...its a racist atheist fairy tale, with no evidence to support it. nothing in the lab, nor in the fossil record.

how hard is my response about antibiotics? bacteria didn't recently acquire an ability to resist antibiotics...its ancient...look it up...and what you call 'evolution' isn't...the bacteria is still a bacteria...and anti-biotic resistance typically results in a loss of specifcy, function, in the bacteria itself.

you do know neanderthals were stronger than we are, and had a larger brain...devolution is more like it, not evolution.

how can lions and tigers be different species when they can mate and produce offspring? hmmmmm?? I look forward to your non-answer to this, just like your non-answer to everything else I've posted.

the bible says how they 'collected' the species...the animals came themselves..duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

at least the bible has evidence to back it up...archeology supports it...unlike that racist atheist fairy tale known as evolution.

no my evidence proves evolution is racist to the core....different populations in isolation evolve differently thats evolution...how hard is this? ..ever hear of eugenics? yeah thats just applied evoluiton...and eugenics led to the gas chambers of nazi germany...and evolution is behind it.....

evolution says we 'just happened' so there is no God...its totally atheistic, provine is right. evolution is atheism disguised as science.

actually evolution could be more accurately described as Darwin did it! for example, you cannot list the mutations that led to the eye, yet you believe the eye evolved.....faith.

so in other words you don't know how the sexes evolved at the same time....why bother at all since hermaphroditic reproduction is so much easier, takes less energy, don't have to fight for mates, etc....so list all of those 'intermediate stages' should be good....


I hope you all learned something. I could read whoknows99's comments all day!
 
2012-06-12 07:56:55 PM  

Mugato: Even morons who are Bible literalists believe in evolution.


Evolution through natural selection?

If you've seen a way that a person can believe the Bible is literally true (not allegorically or figuratively) and square that will evolution through natural selection, I'd love to see it. I mean, it's hard to believe that animals evolved at the same time you believe the Genesis account that on the sixty day of creation "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
 
2012-06-12 08:00:21 PM  

Wangiss: If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin


Homo Hubris
 
2012-06-12 08:04:09 PM  
If humans can go to space, then why is there still an Earth??

Can't explain THAT!
 
2012-06-12 08:04:56 PM  

eraser8: Mugato: Even morons who are Bible literalists believe in evolution.

Evolution through natural selection?

If you've seen a way that a person can believe the Bible is literally true (not allegorically or figuratively) and square that will evolution through natural selection, I'd love to see it. I mean, it's hard to believe that animals evolved at the same time you believe the Genesis account that on the sixty day of creation "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."


They don't think humans evolved, but evolution through natural selection of other animals is usually believed (even if they don't realize it).

You can believe that God created man six thousand years ago, and also believe some animals are different (bigger/smaller/different colors) than they were back then because of natural selection.
 
2012-06-12 08:15:09 PM  

Ryan2065: They don't think humans evolved, but evolution through natural selection of other animals is usually believed (even if they don't realize it).


If one takes the Bible literally, how is there time for evolution to create diversity?

Keep in mind, the kind of person being discussed as believing in evolution (by natural selection) isn't just a DEVOUT Christian; he isn't just an evangelical Christian; he isn't even just a fundamentalist Christian. Mugato specified Biblical LITERALISTS.
 
2012-06-12 08:15:22 PM  
This thread is missing someone...someone important, it's an evolution thread so who is supposed to be here but isn't? I am sure it will come to me.
 
2012-06-12 08:21:28 PM  
Ham the chimp was in space before man ever was.

I wish Ham had a chance to be a senator or was on one of our bills and stamps. Ham was courageous.
 
2012-06-12 08:23:30 PM  

baka-san: I_C_Weener: Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin

Homo sapiens...wise man.


Homo Sopranos...Wise Guy


Youwintheprize.jpg
+1 internets
 
2012-06-12 08:25:11 PM  
Now buy this book

Pretty much.
 
2012-06-12 08:26:29 PM  

Ennuipoet: This thread is missing someone...someone important, it's an evolution thread so who is supposed to be here but isn't? I am sure it will come to me.


Don't do it, there's still the possibility of this being a rational, adult conversation.
 
2012-06-12 08:28:22 PM  

timujin: Ennuipoet: This thread is missing someone...someone important, it's an evolution thread so who is supposed to be here but isn't? I am sure it will come to me.

Don't do it, there's still the possibility of this being a rational, adult conversation.


There is an ignore button, used sparingly, will save you many brain cells.
 
2012-06-12 08:29:34 PM  

eraser8: If one takes the Bible literally, how is there time for evolution to create diversity?


Evolution doesn't always take very long to produce different species. These people tend to believe God made man and all the animals, but some of the animals have evolved since God made them.
 
2012-06-12 08:50:13 PM  

brap: Ham the chimp was in space before man ever was.

I wish Ham had a chance to be a senator or was on one of our bills and stamps. Ham was courageous.


Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Why didn't they send a pig into space?
 
2012-06-12 08:51:54 PM  

Ryan2065: Evolution doesn't always take very long to produce different species. These people tend to believe God made man and all the animals, but some of the animals have evolved since God made them.


Changes in large animals tend to happen fairly slowly...if natural selection is the principal mechanism behind the changes.

If were to argue artificial selection, I'd see your point. But, I still don't see 6,000 years as being sufficient time to make any sort of change that would catch the notice of young earthers.

In any case, my take away from your argument is that these biblical literalists DO NOT believe that evolution by natural selection is responsible for the diversity of life...they believe that a god is responsible -- with natural selection contributing some changes around the margins.

I think I've made it clear that I don't think that view is a belief in evolution by natural selection since natural selection's contribution to diversity, under that view, is negligible.
 
2012-06-12 08:53:28 PM  

I_C_Weener: brap: Ham the chimp was in space before man ever was.

I wish Ham had a chance to be a senator or was on one of our bills and stamps. Ham was courageous.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Why didn't they send a pig into space?


Sending bacon into space is pretty much inviting an alien invasion to steal our supply.
 
2012-06-12 08:57:18 PM  

eraser8: I_C_Weener: brap: Ham the chimp was in space before man ever was.

I wish Ham had a chance to be a senator or was on one of our bills and stamps. Ham was courageous.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Why didn't they send a pig into space?

Sending bacon into space is pretty much inviting an alien invasion to steal our supply.


Or it could be offered as a measure of goodwill to any potential aliens out there. I'll bet aliens have never had bacon before.
 
2012-06-12 09:00:13 PM  

make me some tea: eraser8: I_C_Weener: brap: Ham the chimp was in space before man ever was.

I wish Ham had a chance to be a senator or was on one of our bills and stamps. Ham was courageous.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Why didn't they send a pig into space?

Sending bacon into space is pretty much inviting an alien invasion to steal our supply.

Or it could be offered as a measure of goodwill to any potential aliens out there. I'll bet aliens have never had bacon before.


Quick! Someone photoshop an alien Homer Simpson saying, "Mmmm bacon".
 
2012-06-12 09:08:06 PM  
Visit your local jail, prison or school board meeting and you will see plenty of poo throwing.
 
2012-06-12 09:10:57 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wangiss:

Homo Sapiens NTTAWWT


No homo.
 
2012-06-12 09:11:42 PM  
There's no reasoning with these people.
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-06-12 09:12:09 PM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

"Fascinating."
 
2012-06-12 09:13:35 PM  
viralswagger.net
 
2012-06-12 09:13:58 PM  

kingoomieiii: MaudlinMutantMollusk: //and who would plan THIS?

Have you SEEN old man scrotum? Jesus christ. If there IS a god, he trained at the H. R. Giger school of design.

Or maybe it's the other way around, man. Whoa, who's hands are these?


3.bp.blogspot.com

Well hi there.
 
2012-06-12 09:15:35 PM  
Someone once told me that watching A serbian film was a soul bruising experience. I imagine that reading this article is a intelligence bruising experience.
 
2012-06-12 09:15:47 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.

Chimps BEAT us into space, therefore Dr. Zaius is president and "Mighty Joe Young" wins Best Picture every year.


Thanks for speaking my point.
 
2012-06-12 09:18:16 PM  
Carl Gallups but Karl Hungus

www.elchode.com
 
2012-06-12 09:21:17 PM  

jj325: Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

So this book includes God's origin story?


I'm waiting for someone who decries science so ardently to "scientifically PROVE the existence of God." Without science, how's he going to do that?
 
2012-06-12 09:21:32 PM  
We've never seen evolution so therefore it doesn't exist.

We've never seen Go--

Blasphemer! We see god all the time. Just look around.

/facepalm
 
2012-06-12 09:22:09 PM  
Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.
 
2012-06-12 09:22:19 PM  

jj325: Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

So this book includes God's origin story?


God was working late in the lab one night, and, in a freak accident, he was bitten by a radioactive God! This gave him the powers of God, which he uses to protect Gotham City from the Lex Luthor.
 
2012-06-12 09:22:49 PM  
Nobody better be talking shiat about space chimps.....
 
2012-06-12 09:25:00 PM  
Never trust anyone who uses the word "evolutionist", because they are undoubtedly an ass-gibbet.
 
2012-06-12 09:25:58 PM  

dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.


If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?
 
2012-06-12 09:27:33 PM  

Ennuipoet: This thread is missing someone...someone important, it's an evolution thread so who is supposed to be here but isn't? I am sure it will come to me.


Starts with B ends with an S and those two letters describe him perfectly.
 
2012-06-12 09:28:37 PM  

LarryDan43: Visit your local jail, prison or school board meeting and you will see plenty of poo throwing.


Or any thread on the Politics tab
 
2012-06-12 09:28:40 PM  

Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?


Because they can still survive.
 
2012-06-12 09:28:50 PM  
Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?
 
2012-06-12 09:31:36 PM  

dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.


Actually, humans ARE apes.
 
2012-06-12 09:31:40 PM  

Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?


If America declared independence from England, why is there still an England?
 
2012-06-12 09:31:55 PM  

Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?



Because socialism.
 
2012-06-12 09:32:24 PM  

eraser8: I mean, it's hard to believe that animals evolved at the same time you believe the Genesis account that on the sixty day of creation "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."


God is a Monkey.

/or at least looked like one back then.
 
2012-06-12 09:33:08 PM  
A two-year-old human child is infinitely smarter than any chimp on the planet, and the child's life represents the ability to literally change the future of the planet and history. Not so with the smartest of chimps

That's today. There were times when there was 3 or 4 different intelligent primate species on the planet at the same time. Homo sapiens shared Europe and lived side by side with intelligent tool and fire using Neanderthal only 30,000 years ago. What if they wiped us out? Would there be Thrag instead of Jesus?
 
2012-06-12 09:34:01 PM  

12349876: Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Because they can still survive.


Nu uh. If we descended from monkeys...missing link! Gaps in fossil records!
 
2012-06-12 09:34:40 PM  

dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.


Umm, yes we did descend from apes. We are apes. We are not descendents of the currently living apes, but we are the descendents of apes from the past - just as all the currently living ape species are.
 
2012-06-12 09:34:40 PM  

Tyrano Soros: Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?


Because socialism.


I knew it!
 
2012-06-12 09:35:50 PM  
www.splitreason.com
 
2012-06-12 09:36:30 PM  

Solid Muldoon: Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

If America declared independence from England, why is there still an England?


I think it would be more like "Why do Australians and Americans sound different if they had a common ancestor?"
 
2012-06-12 09:36:31 PM  
Where the hell are the creationists?

Is there a meeting tonight keeping them from being here?
 
2012-06-12 09:37:39 PM  
i165.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-12 09:38:03 PM  

Sabyen91: 12349876: Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Because they can still survive.

Nu uh. If we descended from monkeys...missing link! Gaps in fossil records!


Every time we find a missing link, two more appear.

...wait for it

Kind of like your mom's genital warts.

Burn!
 
2012-06-12 09:40:29 PM  

Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?


The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.
 
2012-06-12 09:41:07 PM  

Farker Soze: Sabyen91: 12349876: Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Because they can still survive.

Nu uh. If we descended from monkeys...missing link! Gaps in fossil records!

Every time we find a missing link, two more appear.

...wait for it

Kind of like your mom's genital warts.

Burn!


The cream is working nicely, thank you very much.
 
2012-06-12 09:41:30 PM  
We get it. He's black!
 
2012-06-12 09:42:23 PM  

Sabyen91: Farker Soze: Sabyen91: 12349876: Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Because they can still survive.

Nu uh. If we descended from monkeys...missing link! Gaps in fossil records!

Every time we find a missing link, two more appear.

...wait for it

Kind of like your mom's genital warts.

Burn!

The cream is working nicely, thank you very much.


Rich Cream: We get it. He's black!


Wow, that was unfortunate timing.
 
2012-06-12 09:42:37 PM  

Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?


If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.
 
2012-06-12 09:43:05 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.

Dogs made it first. Therefore Dogs are superior to humans.


I think we knew that before the space thing.
 
2012-06-12 09:44:36 PM  

nmrsnr: Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?

The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.


i950.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-12 09:45:03 PM  

Sabyen91: Sabyen91: Farker Soze: Sabyen91: 12349876: Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Because they can still survive.

Nu uh. If we descended from monkeys...missing link! Gaps in fossil records!

Every time we find a missing link, two more appear.

...wait for it

Kind of like your mom's genital warts.

Burn!

The cream is working nicely, thank you very much.

Rich Cream: We get it. He's black!

Wow, that was unfortunate timing.


I try to work nicely....
 
2012-06-12 09:45:36 PM  
Eh most of the people who "believe" in evolution basically treat it like magic anyways, so I'm about ready to give up on attempting to get people to understand science.
 
2012-06-12 09:47:29 PM  

Sabyen91: The cream is working nicely, thank you very much.


Rich Cream: We get it. He's black!

That did not just randomly happen. It must have been intelligently designed.
 
2012-06-12 09:49:02 PM  

nmrsnr: Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.


If your siblings were monkeys you would have a point. I get it but the person that would make this argument would probably not understand the difference in your and your siblings' DNA and how different your kids' and your siblings kids' differ and what that means over a hundred generations. What is more someone who made that argument has probably been schooled on it in 1000 Fark threads previously.
 
2012-06-12 09:50:14 PM  

Farker Soze: Sabyen91: The cream is working nicely, thank you very much.

Rich Cream: We get it. He's black!

That did not just randomly happen. It must have been intelligently designed.


Why do you forsake me God!
 
2012-06-12 09:50:25 PM  
Coming from a website that consists entirely of humans flinging poo...
 
2012-06-12 09:52:21 PM  

Farker Soze: Sabyen91: The cream is working nicely, thank you very much.

Rich Cream: We get it. He's black!

That did not just randomly happen. It must have been intelligently designed.



I did feel a compulsion of sorts...
 
2012-06-12 09:53:00 PM  

gas giant: Coming from a website that consists entirely of humans flinging poo...


We have fully opposable thumbs.
 
2012-06-12 09:57:51 PM  

nmrsnr: Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.


Actually, the same logic would be "If I descended from my cousins, then why do I still have cousins." That is directly analogous, and it clearly illustrates the absurdity of the "If we descended from monkeys..." argument.

eraser8: Where the hell are the creationists?

Is there a meeting tonight keeping them from being here?


Do you REALLY want them here? I mean, couldn't you just save time by banging your head into the wall as hard as you can for about 10 minutes? It has roughly the same effect as arguing with creationists... :-/
 
2012-06-12 09:59:06 PM  
I don't know Republicans are typically smart when it comes to sciencey stuff, that an economics.

/Vote Republican
 
2012-06-12 09:59:07 PM  

I_C_Weener: Quick! Someone photoshop an alien Homer Simpson saying, "Mmmm bacon".


Better yet:

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-12 09:59:28 PM  
TRy to keep in mind- we did not evolve from ape but rather, we and our ape cousins evolved from some similar predecessor. Like the Neanderthal, modern man may have peaked out in his evolution as we now have gotten to the point where we have retarded furter evolution by altering our environmentto meet our needs rather than altering ourselves to meet the requirements of our environment. That's not to say any one of us may be the forebearer of future species.

If life's purpose is, indeed to overcome and survive, we're in deep poo. We've stagnated ourselves, defeated our own programming and therefore destined for the finite.
 
2012-06-12 10:02:09 PM  

Mugato: Even morons who are Bible literalists believe in evolution. If you believe in something as ridiculous as the Noah's Ark story you believe that Noah gathered each "type" of animal. Meaning one type of dog, one type of lizard, etc. The mechanism under which each type turned out different animals such as coyote & beagle, iguana & alligator would be...wait for it....evolution.


And a hell of a lot *faster* evolution than anything any Godless Heathen scientist ever proposed.
 
2012-06-12 10:02:21 PM  

clowncar on fire: TRy to keep in mind- we did not evolve from ape but rather, we and our ape cousins evolved from some similar predecessor. Like the Neanderthal, modern man may have peaked out in his evolution as we now have gotten to the point where we have retarded furter evolution by altering our environmentto meet our needs rather than altering ourselves to meet the requirements of our environment. That's not to say any one of us may be the forebearer of future species.

If life's purpose is, indeed to overcome and survive, we're in deep poo. We've stagnated ourselves, defeated our own programming and therefore destined for the finite.


I like beer.
 
2012-06-12 10:03:08 PM  

mamoru: nmrsnr: Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.

Actually, the same logic would be "If I descended from my cousins, then why do I still have cousins." That is directly analogous, and it clearly illustrates the absurdity of the "If we descended from monkeys..." argument.

eraser8: Where the hell are the creationists?

Is there a meeting tonight keeping them from being here?

Do you REALLY want them here? I mean, couldn't you just save time by banging your head into the wall as hard as you can for about 10 minutes? It has roughly the same effect as arguing with creationists... :-/


Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well
 
2012-06-12 10:04:04 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: clowncar on fire: TRy to keep in mind- we did not evolve from ape but rather, we and our ape cousins evolved from some similar predecessor. Like the Neanderthal, modern man may have peaked out in his evolution as we now have gotten to the point where we have retarded furter evolution by altering our environmentto meet our needs rather than altering ourselves to meet the requirements of our environment. That's not to say any one of us may be the forebearer of future species.

If life's purpose is, indeed to overcome and survive, we're in deep poo. We've stagnated ourselves, defeated our own programming and therefore destined for the finite.

I like cheap beer.

FTFY
 
2012-06-12 10:04:55 PM  

nmrsnr: ... the human instinct that created religion...


Not necessarily, at least in broad terms. Religion is an organized, regulated superstition that seems to have roots in our animal nature.

B.F. Skinner: superstition in the pigeon

One of Skinner's experiments examined the formation of superstition in one of his favorite experimental animals, the pigeon. Skinner placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these same actions.[48]

One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.

[49][50]
 
2012-06-12 10:04:59 PM  

clowncar on fire: mamoru: nmrsnr: Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.

Actually, the same logic would be "If I descended from my cousins, then why do I still have cousins." That is directly analogous, and it clearly illustrates the absurdity of the "If we descended from monkeys..." argument.

eraser8: Where the hell are the creationists?

Is there a meeting tonight keeping them from being here?

Do you REALLY want them here? I mean, couldn't you just save time by banging your head into the wall as hard as you can for about 10 minutes? It has roughly the same effect as arguing with creationists... :-/

Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well


Did God give the breath of life to Adam and Eve or a single-celled organism?
 
2012-06-12 10:07:54 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Dogs made it first. Therefore Dogs are superior to humans.


Dogs were first to orbit, but according to Wikipedia a monkey named Albert II beat them into space.
 
2012-06-12 10:08:54 PM  

nmrsnr: Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?

The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.


As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.
 
2012-06-12 10:09:06 PM  

Sabyen91: clowncar on fire: mamoru: nmrsnr: Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.

Actually, the same logic would be "If I descended from my cousins, then why do I still have cousins." That is directly analogous, and it clearly illustrates the absurdity of the "If we descended from monkeys..." argument.

eraser8: Where the hell are the creationists?

Is there a meeting tonight keeping them from being here?

Do you REALLY want them here? I mean, couldn't you just save time by banging your head into the wall as hard as you can for about 10 minutes? It has roughly the same effect as arguing with creationists... :-/

Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well

Did God give the breath of life to Adam and Eve or a single-celled organism?


Adam and Eve is allegorical- a tale of self awareness. A tale of how we discovered we differed from the creatures around us. I was referring to the first single cell.
 
2012-06-12 10:09:20 PM  

clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life


What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?
 
2012-06-12 10:10:19 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Darth_Lukecash: Dogs made it first. Therefore Dogs are superior to humans.

Dogs were first to orbit, but according to Wikipedia a monkey named Albert II beat them into space.


Albert 1 didn't fare so well?
 
2012-06-12 10:11:26 PM  
Pigs smell bad, they roll in poo
So do kids and elderly
 
2012-06-12 10:11:46 PM  

eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?


Does God need add anything?Aare you that vain? Life is not enough for you?
 
2012-06-12 10:12:59 PM  

clowncar on fire: Adam and Eve is allegorical- a tale of self awareness. A tale of how we discovered we differed from the creatures around us. I was referring to the first single cell.


Was that view common before Charles Darwin?
 
2012-06-12 10:13:25 PM  

mamoru: Actually, the same logic would be "If I descended from my cousins, then why do I still have cousins." That is directly analogous, and it clearly illustrates the absurdity of the "If we descended from monkeys..." argument.


Except that I didn't descend from my cousins, so that statement doesn't work. I recognized that I wasn't entirely analogous hence the "roughly the same logic" statement. But since I've been called out on it let me explain why I still think my analogy is better.

The fallacy of the "if we descended from monkeys" argument is that they believe that evolution is linear, that one species becomes the next, and that branching is impossible, so if "monkeys" -> "humans" then there should be no more "monkeys."

This logic is false, and is similar to assuming that when parents have children, the parents' offspring can only have one outcome, so that all offspring must be identical, instead of varied, such as (non-identical) siblings.

So really, I should have said "If I descended from my parents, why are there still people who are related to me that aren't identical to me" but that's a bit of a mouthful, and I wanted to be pithy.
 
2012-06-12 10:14:13 PM  

Sabyen91: nmrsnr: Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.

If your siblings were monkeys you would have a point. I get it but the person that would make this argument would probably not understand the difference in your and your siblings' DNA and how different your kids' and your siblings kids' differ and what that means over a hundred generations. What is more someone who made that argument has probably been schooled on it in 1000 Fark threads previously.


Sigh.

We didn't descend from apes. Both humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. There was much branching and many of the lines died out due to the inability to compete for resources. Not many species stand still evolutionary-speaking. There is always a different up & comer looking to occupy your niche in the environment. Just look how invasive species introduced from one part of the world to another can completely out-compete the local plants and animals. Our mobility has sped-up the 'selection' portion of evolution, but mutation just takes time. I know you are clinging to anything to validate your point of view, but really, if there was a god, why on earth would it want to preserve something so useless and mundane as your consciousness and memories. You just need to come to grips with the sad reality that all you are and all you know will soon be lost forever, like tears in the rain.
 
2012-06-12 10:14:14 PM  

eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?


Without God there would be no Satan/Devil...You want a world without the devil in your heavy metal, no satan in your horror movies?

Add THAT.
 
2012-06-12 10:14:52 PM  

Mugato: The mechanism under which each type turned out different animals such as coyote & beagle, iguana & alligator would be...wait for it....evolution.


And at a far, far faster rate of change than any scientist would ever imagine.
 
2012-06-12 10:16:18 PM  

madgonad: You just need to come to grips with the sad reality that all you are and all you know will soon be lost forever, like tears in the rain.


www.rhianbowley.com

DUST. WIND. DUDE.
 
2012-06-12 10:16:23 PM  

clowncar on fire: eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?

Does God need add anything?Aare you that vain? Life is not enough for you?


The first living form- niether creationists nor evolutionists have an answer. Can we not, for only once, slip off the chains of fact and science and enjoy a brief moment of magic- be it science or myth?
 
2012-06-12 10:16:36 PM  

clowncar on fire: eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?

Does God need add anything?Aare you that vain? Life is not enough for you?


I'm vain because I don't think the universe was put here for me? I'm vain because I don't think that I'm so exceptional that only "the intervention of a deity" can explain my existence?

I think, perhaps, you don't understand what the word "vain" means.

In any case, my point was that natural selection explains the diversity of life without the need for a god or gods. So, what's the point of adding one to the explanation?
 
2012-06-12 10:17:00 PM  
there is not much happening on the book's Amazon tags page.
 
2012-06-12 10:17:10 PM  

clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well


And what, pray tell, is the "breath of life"?

Be specific, please. Because as far as biologists are concerned, there is no natural innate property called "life". You cannot look into a living cell and find some "life" essence or whatever. Life is an arbitrary designation of certain extremely complex chemical systems which in all actuality have no non-arbitrary discrete boundary from similarly complex chemistry called non-life.

Hence the age-old disagreements about whether or not to classify viruses as "life".
 
2012-06-12 10:18:04 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Without God there would be no Satan/Devil...You want a world without the devil in your heavy metal, no satan in your horror movies?


Well, it IS true that all the best bands are affiliated with Satan.

So, I guess I'm a little torn.
 
2012-06-12 10:18:11 PM  

madgonad: Sabyen91: nmrsnr: Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.

If your siblings were monkeys you would have a point. I get it but the person that would make this argument would probably not understand the difference in your and your siblings' DNA and how different your kids' and your siblings kids' differ and what that means over a hundred generations. What is more someone who made that argument has probably been schooled on it in 1000 Fark threads previously.

Sigh.

We didn't descend from apes. Both humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. There was much branching and many of the lines died out due to the inability to compete for resources. Not many species stand still evolutionary-speaking. There is always a different up & comer looking to occupy your niche in the environment. Just look how invasive species introduced from one part of the world to another can completely out-compete the local plants and animals. Our mobility has sped-up the 'selection' portion of evolution, but mutation just takes time. I know you are clinging to anything to validate your point of view, but really, if there was a god, why on earth would it want to preserve something so useless and mundane as your consciousness and memories. You just need to come to grips with the sad reality that all you are and all you know will soon be lost forever, like tears in the rain.


I kinda just said that (the branching part). I didn't go into genetic drift or genetic isolation though. :)
 
2012-06-12 10:18:25 PM  
Wayne 985:

That's really cool, but I think there's a bit of a difference between false learned behavior and superstition, although I recognize that there is much room for debate here.
 
2012-06-12 10:19:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: vernonFL: Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.

And cats are smart enough to know not to go into space to begin with.

Ergo, cats rule.


4.bp.blogspot.com

It's just like how a smart man knows to stay out the rain...
 
2012-06-12 10:20:42 PM  

fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.


I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?
 
2012-06-12 10:21:37 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?

Without God there would be no Satan/Devil...You want a world without the devil in your heavy metal, no satan in your horror movies?

Add THAT.


The "devil" is just bad wiring. Kids who kill small animals and grow up to be murderers, fuhrers bent on genocyde, movie stars with million dollar accounts stealing from your local Walmart, punching a loved one in the eye- not the works of satan but bad wiring.
 
2012-06-12 10:22:19 PM  

clowncar on fire: Albert 1 didn't fare so well?


Nope. Neither did #2 for that matter, but his problems were on the way down after he'd unlocked the achievement.
 
2012-06-12 10:24:47 PM  

nmrsnr: Except that I didn't descend from my cousins, so that statement doesn't work.


Which is EXACTLY the point. We didn't descend from monkeys as in modern extant monkeys. So the premise "If we descended from monkeys..." is absurd and false. Granted, Apes and Monkeys share a common ancestor, and in all probability, if we could see one we would say, "Hey look, a monkey". But it would be quite genetically distinct from extant monkeys and apes. It would another in a long line of extinct species.

So the only way to make an accurate statement from the "If we descended from monkeys..." argument is to be very specific and say "If we descended from extinct monkeys which were also the ancestors of all other monkeys and apes, then why are there still monkeys?" And, when you put it like that, it is a question that answers itself and makes the person asking it sound like a retard.

Do you really think Creationists mean the question in that latter way? Or is it more likely they ask it in the former way with the misconception that evolutionists think that modern extant living things are the descendents of other modern extant things? Well, either way, it is a retarded and absurd question, and the person asking can't but sound retarded.
 
2012-06-12 10:24:59 PM  
It boils down to one thing...Micheal J Fox has no Elvis in him.
 
2012-06-12 10:25:33 PM  
Yeah but have we ever seen God's Long Form Birth Certificate?
 
2012-06-12 10:25:42 PM  

jj325: Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

So this book includes God's origin story?


It's worth noting that even if this 'ardent atheist' WOULD have a difficult time refuting the evidence, doesn't that mean that the author accepts that it would still be possible to do so?

No...I'm just being silly. I'll go back to my corner now.
 
2012-06-12 10:26:14 PM  

mamoru: And, when you put it like that, it is a question that answers itself and makes the person asking it sound like a retard.


Yeah, that was my original intent.
 
2012-06-12 10:27:06 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: It boils down to one thing...Micheal J Fox has no Elvis in him.


And I heard that he finally got out of Joan Rivers.
 
2012-06-12 10:28:18 PM  

The Lone Gunman: jj325: Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

So this book includes God's origin story?

It's worth noting that even if this 'ardent atheist' WOULD have a difficult time refuting the evidence, doesn't that mean that the author accepts that it would still be possible to do so?

No...I'm just being silly. I'll go back to my corner now.


I am thinking it is more likely that his premise is so steeped in mysticism and unprovable that it is impossible to refute.

/Teapots.
 
2012-06-12 10:28:37 PM  
keithpp.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-12 10:30:32 PM  

eraser8: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Without God there would be no Satan/Devil...You want a world without the devil in your heavy metal, no satan in your horror movies?

Well, it IS true that all the best bands are affiliated with Satan.

So, I guess I'm a little torn.


Get out! And don't come back until you've redeemed yourself!

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-12 10:30:53 PM  

eraser8: I'm vain because I don't think the universe was put here for me?


Well, I do. But that's because I believe in Special and Inevitable Anthropic Principle, which is, as explained by Terry Pratchett:

"Many people are aware of the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles. The Weak One says, basically, that it was jolly amazing of the universe to be constructed in such a way that humans could evolve to a point where they make a living in, for example, universities, while the Strong One says that, one the contrary, the whole point of the universe was that humans should not only work in universities by also write for huge sums books with words like `cosmic' and `chaos' in the titles.

And they are correct. The universe clearly operates for the benefit of humanity This can be readily seen from the convenient way the sun comes up in the morning, when people are ready to start the day.

The UU Professor of Anthropics had developed the Special and Inevitable Anthropic Principle, which was that the entire reason for the existence of the universe was the eventual evolution of the UU Professor of Anthropics. But this was only a fomal statement of the theory which absolutely everyone, with only some minor details of a `Fll in name here' nature, secretly believes to be true"
 
2012-06-12 10:32:38 PM  

nmrsnr: fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?


The religious would tell you they're not looking for factual truth in the scientific, material sense. The ones that try fail miserably. Most are looking for purpose in life, even hope. Science isn't going to provide that.
 
2012-06-12 10:33:27 PM  

mamoru: Which is EXACTLY the point.


Ah, I see, you're right, that works quite well.

Well, either way, it is a retarded and absurd question, and the person asking can't but sound retarded.

Agreed.

Sabyen91: Yeah, that was my original intent.


Poe's law can be a biatch
 
2012-06-12 10:34:40 PM  
Here's my take on the subject:

The problem with "Prometheus" is that it tried to shoehorn way, way, way too much story into one movie. The problem with "2001: A Space Odyssey" is that while the first 20 minutes are braised awesome slathered in delicious Club Sauce, the rest of the movie is the biggest snorefest ever brought to the silver screen.

So.

If we could just find some kind of way to average the two, we would achieve sci-fi blasphemy nirvana. It's so simple! Wake up sheeple.
 
2012-06-12 10:35:00 PM  

mamoru: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well

And what, pray tell, is the "breath of life"?

Be specific, please. Because as far as biologists are concerned, there is no natural innate property called "life". You cannot look into a living cell and find some "life" essence or whatever. Life is an arbitrary designation of certain extremely complex chemical systems which in all actuality have no non-arbitrary discrete boundary from similarly complex chemistry called non-life.

Hence the age-old disagreements about whether or not to classify viruses as "life".


I thought life was found in a body that contained the complex chemical reactions thatcould both sustain that body as well as allow it to reproduce. The 'miracle that occurred was that all those complex proteins in one brief moment could come together in such a way that these two events could occur. Both of these functions designed to carry on life.

Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?- Obviously they reproduce and can sustain themselves even if on a primitive level. Proteins can perform the basic tasks of creating similar proteins through chemical reactions, but they don't necessarily do this as imperativefor continuance but rather as a function of being a protein.
 
2012-06-12 10:35:35 PM  

nmrsnr: mamoru: Which is EXACTLY the point.

Ah, I see, you're right, that works quite well.

Well, either way, it is a retarded and absurd question, and the person asking can't but sound retarded.

Agreed.

Sabyen91: Yeah, that was my original intent.

Poe's law can be a biatch


Heh, except he quoted the post where I told you where I was going with it. :)

/I am guilty of just reading the first line of posts, too.
 
2012-06-12 10:39:10 PM  
I believe in the Strong Lithopic Principle.

The universe was designed and started by God specifically for rocks. I mean, seriously. Look how well the universe is suited for rocks. They survive great and last forever in a vacuum. The only places that are really bad for them are the stars, but the stars are merely the means to produce elements that will make more rocks from simple hydrogen and helium. Doing it this way means minimal work from God, as the universe simply maintains itself and replenishes the elements necessary to produce more wonderful rocks.

If the physical constants and laws of the universe were even a little bit different, then rocks would not form properly. That they form so perfectly and exist so well anywhere in the universe (except in stars; but since most of the universe is empty space where rocks survive just fine, one can reasonably say 99.999999999% of the universe is perfectly suitable for rocks) is a clear sign that the universe was designed for them.

It is an unfortunate side effect, however, that the physical constants and laws necessary to bring about the formation of such perfect rocks by God's design also cause certain classes of self-replicating chemical reactions that, given time, develop into complex "organisms" which then go on to blaspheme by damaging the beloved (by God) rocks. Luckily, such phenomena are not suited for survival in 99.99999999999999999% of the universe and so are of no consequence to God's plan.
 
2012-06-12 10:40:20 PM  

clowncar on fire: mamoru: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well

And what, pray tell, is the "breath of life"?

Be specific, please. Because as far as biologists are concerned, there is no natural innate property called "life". You cannot look into a living cell and find some "life" essence or whatever. Life is an arbitrary designation of certain extremely complex chemical systems which in all actuality have no non-arbitrary discrete boundary from similarly complex chemistry called non-life.

Hence the age-old disagreements about whether or not to classify viruses as "life".

I thought life was found in a body that contained the complex chemical reactions thatcould both sustain that body as well as allow it to reproduce. The 'miracle that occurred was that all those complex proteins in one brief moment could come together in such a way that these two events could occur. Both of these functions designed to carry on life.

Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?- Obviously they reproduce and can sustain themselves even if on a primitive level. Proteins can perform the basic tasks of creating similar proteins through chemical reactions, but they don't necessarily do this as imperativefor continuance but rather as a function of being a protein.


Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.
 
2012-06-12 10:44:49 PM  

mamoru: I believe in the Strong Lithopic Principle.

The universe was designed and started by God specifically for rocks. I mean, seriously. Look how well the universe is suited for rocks. They survive great and last forever in a vacuum. The only places that are really bad for them are the stars, but the stars are merely the means to produce elements that will make more rocks from simple hydrogen and helium. Doing it this way means minimal work from God, as the universe simply maintains itself and replenishes the elements necessary to produce more wonderful rocks.

If the physical constants and laws of the universe were even a little bit different, then rocks would not form properly. That they form so perfectly and exist so well anywhere in the universe (except in stars; but since most of the universe is empty space where rocks survive just fine, one can reasonably say 99.999999999% of the universe is perfectly suitable for rocks) is a clear sign that the universe was designed for them.

It is an unfortunate side effect, however, that the physical constants and laws necessary to bring about the formation of such perfect rocks by God's design also cause certain classes of self-replicating chemical reactions that, given time, develop into complex "organisms" which then go on to blaspheme by damaging the beloved (by God) rocks. Luckily, such phenomena are not suited for survival in 99.99999999999999999% of the universe and so are of no consequence to God's plan.


bulk.destructoid.com

/Wait, not a rock?
 
2012-06-12 10:45:34 PM  

eraser8: clowncar on fire: eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?

Does God need add anything?Aare you that vain? Life is not enough for you?

I'm vain because I don't think the universe was put here for me? I'm vain because I don't think that I'm so exceptional that only "the intervention of a deity" can explain my existence?

I'm six or 7 cheap beers deep right now and i never took any college level existential courses- what's your excuse. Did I not point out cheap beers no less?

I think, perhaps, you don't understand what the word "vain" means.

In any case, my point was that natural selection explains the diversity of life without the need for a god or gods. So, what's the point of adding one to the explanation?


You'll to need to look into getting your sarcasm meter checked. As early as tomorrow won't hurt but otherwise wait until Monday as you can only expect a rush job before the weekend.
 
2012-06-12 10:46:37 PM  

0Icky0: 3_Butt_Cheeks: It boils down to one thing...Micheal J Fox has no Elvis in him.

And I heard that he finally got out of Joan Rivers.


Michael or Elvis?
 
2012-06-12 10:47:52 PM  

fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?

The religious would tell you they're not looking for factual truth in the scientific, material sense. The ones that try fail miserably. Most are looking for purpose in life, even hope. Science isn't going to provide that.


Really? Really?

a) the religious can comfort themselves however they wish - we're all just trying to get through our days here and religion can be a beautiful thing to those in need - but if they're not looking for "factual truth" (is there any other kind?) then they can keep it out of the science classroom, and;

b) I hope that many diseases will be cured in my lifetime. I hope that crop yields will be increased, sustainable energy explored, the global standard of living raised, texts published and inventions shared around the world, infants vaccinated, lifespans extended, flying cars and high speed rail and jet packs and rocket ships built. And one day, travel to other worlds made possible. Science gives me a lot more hope and purpose than religion ever has.
 
2012-06-12 10:47:58 PM  
Just remember that toilet paper is not mentioned in the Bible.
 
2012-06-12 10:48:17 PM  

clowncar on fire: You'll to need to look into getting your sarcasm meter checked. As early as tomorrow won't hurt but otherwise wait until Monday as you can only expect a rush job before the weekend.


My detector has always been a bit wonky. I mean, I did get it second-hand through Craigslist.
 
2012-06-12 10:48:53 PM  

eraser8: clowncar on fire: You'll to need to look into getting your sarcasm meter checked. As early as tomorrow won't hurt but otherwise wait until Monday as you can only expect a rush job before the weekend.

My detector has always been a bit wonky. I mean, I did get it second-hand through Craigslist.


Dude, that is a sex toy.
 
2012-06-12 10:51:37 PM  

BlackArt: Just remember that toilet paper is not mentioned in the Bible.


I'd like to take this opportunity to plug one of the greatest hygiene products in the history of the universe:

i.walmartimages.com
 
2012-06-12 10:52:43 PM  

wildsnowllama: clowncar on fire: mamoru: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life- where it will go from there is anybody's guess. Obviously a Darwinist as well

And what, pray tell, is the "breath of life"?

Be specific, please. Because as far as biologists are concerned, there is no natural innate property called "life". You cannot look into a living cell and find some "life" essence or whatever. Life is an arbitrary designation of certain extremely complex chemical systems which in all actuality have no non-arbitrary discrete boundary from similarly complex chemistry called non-life.

Hence the age-old disagreements about whether or not to classify viruses as "life".

I thought life was found in a body that contained the complex chemical reactions thatcould both sustain that body as well as allow it to reproduce. The 'miracle that occurred was that all those complex proteins in one brief moment could come together in such a way that these two events could occur. Both of these functions designed to carry on life.

Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?- Obviously they reproduce and can sustain themselves even if on a primitive level. Proteins can perform the basic tasks of creating similar proteins through chemical reactions, but they don't necessarily do this as imperativefor continuance but rather as a function of being a protein.

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.


Obviously they are very capable as they have the ability to hijack other life forms specifically for their own continuance.

It's not like humans engage in the same activity.
 
2012-06-12 10:52:53 PM  

BlackArt: Just remember that toilet paper is not mentioned in the Bible.


So you're saying God is a poo-flinging monkey with no need of tp for His bunghole?
 
2012-06-12 10:55:09 PM  

BlackArt: Just remember that toilet paper is not mentioned in the Bible.


Not mentioned in the Bill of Rights either. Your point?
 
2012-06-12 10:55:18 PM  

clowncar on fire: one brief moment


By "one brief moment" do you mean "over the course of hundreds of millions of years of geochemistry"? Because if so, then we have very different conceptions of "one brief moment". If not, then you may have some misconceptions about what was necessary for the formation of biological systems or "life" and the time it took (or at least had available) to form.

clowncar on fire: Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?


Traditionally, life is often defined as having these 7 properties: 1.) cellular organization, 2.) metabolism, 3.) growth (defined as anabolism > catabolism), 4.) reproduction (a direct result of growth) with heredity, 5.) homeostasis, 6.) response to stimuli, and 7.) adaptation/evolution. Now, of course, it is best to think of these properties as guidelines in that, if something has all 7 then it is definitely life.

Now, a virus generally lacks 1, 2, 3, and 5. They rely solely on infected living cells for those things. Without living cells to act as hosts, viruses are "inanimate" lumps of DNA and protein doing nothing. On the other hand, one could argue the same for bacterial spores which are completely inanimate in bad conditions. Yet in "normal" conditions they act as living cells satisfying all 7 properties.

So the thing about viruses is that they can only be "alive" when they are using a living cell for all of the processes we think of as life. Without living cells to host them they aren't "alive". So do they count as "life" or not?

And what of Viroids, which are naked DNA or RNA molecules (no protein coat) that can also cause the machinery of infected cells to replicate them?

In reality, the question and the distinction are unimportant, because like I said, "life" is an arbitrary classification, not an innate property. Biologists don't (or shouldn't) care if a virus or a viroid (or even a prion) is considered "life" or not, because they are still biologically important and interesting things, and how we classify them does not change that.
 
2012-06-12 10:55:34 PM  

fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?

The religious would tell you they're not looking for factual truth in the scientific, material sense. The ones that try fail miserably. Most are looking for purpose in life, even hope. Science isn't going to provide that.


Wow!

The scientific purpose of life is life itself! Reproduction, adaptation etc. Science is certainly providing that. And hope is a manifestation of awareness. But you do not need awareness for survival and evolution.
 
2012-06-12 10:57:46 PM  
I'm with Robert Anton Wilson on this one:

"Animals outline their territories with their excretions, humans outline their territories by ink excretions on paper."
 
2012-06-12 10:57:53 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: madgonad: You just need to come to grips with the sad reality that all you are and all you know will soon be lost forever, like tears in the rain.

DUST. WIND. DUDE.


I was going for Batty in Blade Runner, but Bill & Ted is cool too.
 
2012-06-12 11:02:25 PM  

Wayne 985: nmrsnr: ... the human instinct that created religion...

Not necessarily, at least in broad terms. Religion is an organized, regulated superstition that seems to have roots in our animal nature.

B.F. Skinner: superstition in the pigeon

One of Skinner's experiments examined the formation of superstition in one of his favorite experimental animals, the pigeon. Skinner placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these same actions.[48]

One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return.[49][50]


Aha! Now I have a perfect justification for referring to creationists as bird-brains!
 
2012-06-12 11:03:57 PM  

wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.


My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?
 
2012-06-12 11:05:25 PM  

vernonFL: Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.


Fruit flies were in space before dogs or humans or chimps!
 
2012-06-12 11:08:23 PM  

bbfreak: vernonFL: Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.

Fruit flies were in space before dogs or humans or chimps!


Pigs were in space later, but brought drama and style!
 
2012-06-12 11:09:37 PM  

FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?


And your mother hi-jacked a couple of incomplete cells from your father. But they reproduce as a spieces. Thus are they both living. Both are needed.
The living cell does not need the virus to reproduce, but the virus need a cell, not another virus.
 
2012-06-12 11:11:04 PM  

Wangiss: If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin


H0m() Sap3!en
 
2012-06-12 11:13:21 PM  

FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?


The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)

Pharque-it: But they reproduce as a spieces.


Ah yes... "species". Yet another arbitrary classification which is given far more importance and controversy than it deserves. Necessary, because humans like to think in categories, but annoying because so many misconceptions about biology and evolution spring from it.

/gotta go teach a class; can't respond for an hour
 
2012-06-12 11:13:58 PM  

TedDalton: Wangiss: If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin

H0m() Sap3!en


Homo Sabyen91.

/It is in there somewhere.
 
2012-06-12 11:16:32 PM  

mamoru: The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)


Liger!

www.theodoresworld.net
 
2012-06-12 11:20:41 PM  

fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?

The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.

As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.


It balances an unbalanced equation. Our survival instinct says, "don't die." Our ability to plan ahead and predict the future based on past experiences helps us expect (and thus survive) future adversity. But when that predictive cognizance hits the knowledge of the inevitability of death it causes a fatal systems error in the survival instinct. Essentially, "I must not die, I will inevitably die, paradox, system error, BSOD!"

Religion is a system patch that says, "your consciousness is a soul which lives on past death, in the sky or something." Thus flags remain untripped and Survival instinct can still operate the prediction engine without crashing.

Later we can talk about how mankind's creative spark, curiosity, and knack for experimentation are what causes dead, stupid religions to keep clawing their way back into peoples' heads.
 
2012-06-12 11:21:03 PM  

mamoru: clowncar on fire: one brief moment

By "one brief moment" do you mean "over the course of hundreds of millions of years of geochemistry"? Because if so, then we have very different conceptions of "one brief moment". If not, then you may have some misconceptions about what was necessary for the formation of biological systems or "life" and the time it took (or at least had available) to form.

clowncar on fire: Why do they have aproblem defining a virus as living?

Traditionally, life is often defined as having these 7 properties: 1.) cellular organization, 2.) metabolism, 3.) growth (defined as anabolism > catabolism), 4.) reproduction (a direct result of growth) with heredity, 5.) homeostasis, 6.) response to stimuli, and 7.) adaptation/evolution. Now, of course, it is best to think of these properties as guidelines in that, if something has all 7 then it is definitely life.

Now, a virus generally lacks 1, 2, 3, and 5. They rely solely on infected living cells for those things. Without living cells to act as hosts, viruses are "inanimate" lumps of DNA and protein doing nothing. On the other hand, one could argue the same for bacterial spores which are completely inanimate in bad conditions. Yet in "normal" conditions they act as living cells satisfying all 7 properties.

So the thing about viruses is that they can only be "alive" when they are using a living cell for all of the processes we think of as life. Without living cells to host them they aren't "alive". So do they count as "life" or not?

And what of Viroids, which are naked DNA or RNA molecules (no protein coat) that can also cause the machinery of infected cells to replicate them?

In reality, the question and the distinction are unimportant, because like I said, "life" is an arbitrary classification, not an innate property. Biologists don't (or shouldn't) care if a virus or a viroid (or even a prion) is considered "life" or not, because they are still biologically important and interesting things, a ...


Prions are mean motherfarkers that will fark you up.
 
2012-06-12 11:22:42 PM  

TheBigJerk: fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?

The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.

As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

It balances an unbalanced equation. Our survival instinct says, "don't die." Our ability to plan ahead and predict the future based on past experiences helps us expect (and thus survive) future adversity. But when that predictive cognizance hits the knowledge of the inevitability of death it causes a fatal systems error in the survival instinct. Essentially, "I must not die, I will inevitably die, paradox, system error, BSOD!"

Religion is a system patch that says, "your consciousness is a soul which lives on past death, in the sky or something." Thus flags remain untripped and Survival instinct can still operate the prediction engine without crashing.

Later we can talk about how mankind's creative spark, curiosity, and knack for experimentation are what causes dead, stupid religions to keep clawing their way back into peoples' heads.


What the hell is so great about life that people think we must go on? Ok, I suppose I didn't become atheist quickly because of that but when you come to terms with the idea that you will be exactly like you were before you were born it is actually...kinda nice.
 
2012-06-12 11:27:35 PM  
It is a proven fact that anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is, in fact, a Christian who is trolling.

/I like facts.
 
2012-06-12 11:29:57 PM  

Daraymann: It is a proven fact that anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is, in fact, a Christian who is trolling.

/I like facts.


That is probably true. However, disproving parts of the bible through evolution is quite possible.

/Of course those parts just become allegorical.
 
2012-06-12 11:31:26 PM  
I am amazed that this thread hasn't been hijacked by the usual evolution trolls yet.

Where are they? ...did we scare them all off, or have they switched to alts?
 
2012-06-12 11:31:29 PM  
Based on this article, it looks like a whole lot of words that don't say anything resembling substance.
 
2012-06-12 11:32:17 PM  

mamoru: FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?

The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)


Thank you, just got back and you had taken care of that.
 
2012-06-12 11:38:32 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: madgonad: You just need to come to grips with the sad reality that all you are and all you know will soon be lost forever, like tears in the rain.

[www.rhianbowley.com image 568x326]

DUST. WIND. DUDE.


contacto-latino.com

Dude, WAT?
 
2012-06-12 11:43:37 PM  
Godammit subby I'm stupider for having read that article. Thanks a lot.
 
2012-06-12 11:46:55 PM  

mamoru: FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?

The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)

Pharque-it: But they reproduce as a spieces.

Ah yes... "species". Yet another arbitrary classification which is given far more importance and controversy than it deserves. Necessary, because humans like to think in categories, but annoying because so many misconceptions about biology and evolution spring from it.

/gotta go teach a class; can't respond for an hour


I guess you mean reproduction thru meiosis (sexual reproduction) vs mitotis (asexual). Sorry for using the term "spieces" a bit losly....
 
2012-06-12 11:49:28 PM  
yeah, mitosis....
 
2012-06-12 11:49:59 PM  
You know what would be swell? A creationism advocate who actually knows the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Especially the part where abiogenesis isn't agreed upon or even proveable at this point, unlike evolution, which has been tested and says nothing about the ultimate origins of life.
 
2012-06-12 11:51:27 PM  

whytgai: You know what would be swell? A creationism advocate who actually knows the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Especially the part where abiogenesis isn't agreed upon or even proveable at this point, unlike evolution, which has been tested and says nothing about the ultimate origins of life.


If they did understand that they wouldn't be such clueless tools. Wouldn't work.
 
2012-06-12 11:51:47 PM  
I think we still fling poo. The poo is just much bigger and if we all fling our poo at the same time, the planet will be 100% poo to the point that we would all drown in the poo.

/poo
 
2012-06-12 11:52:28 PM  

FloydA: Gwendolyn: I had a sixth grade teacher who told us evolution wasn't real because if it was monkeys would keep having babies. That made about as much sense as this guy.


wat

That doesn't even make sense in a nonsense kind of way. Did he think that monkeys don't reproduce? Where did he think they come from?


At the time I figured he meant to say say HUMAN babies. The guy was a jackass and said stupid shiat all the time. I had learned earlier in the year that arguing with him didn't do much but get me sent to the office.
 
2012-06-12 11:52:31 PM  
Mules CAN reproduce

A VERY few (about 1 in 1 million) mare mules have had foals
 
2012-06-12 11:53:21 PM  
Homo Sapiens Teatardensis?
 
2012-06-12 11:54:33 PM  

TheBigJerk: fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?

The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.

As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

It balances an unbalanced equation. Our survival instinct says, "don't die." Our ability to plan ahead and predict the future based on past experiences helps us expect (and thus survive) future adversity. But when that predictive cognizance hits the knowledge of the inevitability of death it causes a fatal systems error in the survival instinct. Essentially, "I must not die, I will inevitably die, paradox, system error, BSOD!"

Religion is a system patch that says, "your consciousness is a soul which lives on past death, in the sky or something." Thus flags remain untripped and Survival instinct can still operate the prediction engine without crashing.

Later we can talk about how mankind's creative spark, curiosity, and knack for experimentation are what causes dead, stupid religions to keep clawing their way back into peoples' heads.


Seems to me more like a kludge than a proper patch. Religion is a solution that was devised by people who didn't really understand how the system works (heck, even with modern science we don't fully understand how it works!), and as a result it has a lot of unintended side-effects.
 
2012-06-12 11:54:48 PM  

Gwendolyn: FloydA: Gwendolyn: I had a sixth grade teacher who told us evolution wasn't real because if it was monkeys would keep having babies. That made about as much sense as this guy.


wat

That doesn't even make sense in a nonsense kind of way. Did he think that monkeys don't reproduce? Where did he think they come from?

At the time I figured he meant to say say HUMAN babies. The guy was a jackass and said stupid shiat all the time. I had learned earlier in the year that arguing with him didn't do much but get me sent to the office.


Wow, a teacher with that loose of a grasp on logic. Sad.
 
2012-06-12 11:56:15 PM  
Name a product developed on the basis of "intelligent design". Just one (bibble and torture contraptions excluded...).
 
2012-06-12 11:57:15 PM  

whytgai: You know what would be swell? A creationism advocate who actually knows the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Especially the part where abiogenesis isn't agreed upon or even proveable at this point, unlike evolution, which has been tested and says nothing about the ultimate origins of life.


To them, its all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance, and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their value set based on individual issues rather than blanket "check all" subscriptions.

It doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.
 
2012-06-13 12:02:27 AM  
Far less chimps have died in space than have humans. Chimps also managed to get us to do all the work of getting them there and back. Then they figured out that there wasn't really all that much to see up there and stopped going decades before we did. All in all, you'd have to say that chimpanzees were much better adapted to space travel than humans.
 
2012-06-13 12:04:24 AM  

snuff3r: TFA: "This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. E. coli long-term evolution experiment^


I think he might be referring to this:

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Though I could be mistaken because I won't click on WND links.
 
2012-06-13 12:06:08 AM  
Oh, look. Another creationist retard come to spew his ignorance at the world.
 
2012-06-13 12:07:16 AM  

12349876: Ennuipoet: This thread is missing someone...someone important, it's an evolution thread so who is supposed to be here but isn't? I am sure it will come to me.

Starts with B ends with an S and those two letters describe him perfectly.


Just use the damn image card, it's more for mocking than anything else.

i251.photobucket.com

/We're not really serious, are we?
 
2012-06-13 12:08:08 AM  

Ishkur: whytgai: You know what would be swell? A creationism advocate who actually knows the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Especially the part where abiogenesis isn't agreed upon or even proveable at this point, unlike evolution, which has been tested and says nothing about the ultimate origins of life.

To them, its all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance, and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their value set based on individual issues rather than blanket "check all" subscriptions.

It doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.


Evolution invalidates Genesis. Therefore it has to completely replace Genesis. Even the parts evolution doesn't address. Why? Because they're idiots.
 
2012-06-13 12:11:49 AM  

Sabyen91: Daraymann: It is a proven fact that anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is, in fact, a Christian who is trolling.

/I like facts.

That is probably true. However, disproving parts of the bible through evolution is quite possible.

/Of course those parts just become allegorical.


So, we're down to the names of a few cities and a king or two and a metric assload of allegory?
 
2012-06-13 12:13:40 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Sabyen91: Daraymann: It is a proven fact that anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is, in fact, a Christian who is trolling.

/I like facts.

That is probably true. However, disproving parts of the bible through evolution is quite possible.

/Of course those parts just become allegorical.

So, we're down to the names of a few cities and a king or two and a metric assload of allegory?


Yup.
 
2012-06-13 12:15:24 AM  

Cythraul: [askwhy.co.uk image 430x295]

Damn those anti-evolution monoliths.


Time to recycle from Photoshop theme: 2010: The Year Fark.com Makes Contact

www3.picturepush.com
 
2012-06-13 12:15:44 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-13 12:16:11 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Ishkur: whytgai: You know what would be swell? A creationism advocate who actually knows the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Especially the part where abiogenesis isn't agreed upon or even proveable at this point, unlike evolution, which has been tested and says nothing about the ultimate origins of life.

To them, its all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance, and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their value set based on individual issues rather than blanket "check all" subscriptions.

It doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.

Evolution invalidates Genesis. Therefore it has to completely replace Genesis. Even the parts evolution doesn't address. Why? Because they're idiots.


Evolution has thusly been validated as the subcribers to any other beliefs are idiots. You heard it here. You realize that "evolution" is only a theory at this point. Has a few holes in it but appears to cover most of the bases for now...
 
2012-06-13 12:18:31 AM  

Pharque-it: I guess you mean reproduction thru meiosis (sexual reproduction) vs mitotis (asexual). Sorry for using the term "spieces" a bit losly....


No, no, I meant mitosis, because I was referring to the reproduction that causes the growth of bodies. Yes, the gametes are the result of meiosis. FloydA was (intentionally, I assume) posing an absurd question that represents a common misconception about what is necessarily meant by "reproduction" as a property of "life". I was just dropping the simple, obvious counter. ;)

As for "species", no worries. The concept has its uses, but it is important to remember that it IS an arbitrary human designation to try to divide a continuum (all life on earth over all time is a continuum, and while branches can be discrete, they are still continuously connected through the past to the common ancestor and back up the other branch) into discrete groups. We try to make the divisions in sensible ways, but they are human imposed and nature doesn't have to respect them.

The reason I say it is important to remember this is people put too much importance on species, especially regarding evolution, often having the misconception that "it's not evolution if it doesn't form a new species". The changing genes and gene frequencies (the formal definition of evolution) in populations don't really give a damn about whether or not new species form, because nucleic acid molecules are incapable of caring about anything. Natch. ;)

They are merely subject to having their frequencies changed by mechanisms such as Mutation, Migration, Selection (Natural, Artificial, Sexual) and Random Drift.

Evolution explains the formation of groups that we consider separate species. But it doesn't demand that species form. That is just a by product of evolution. And by "evolution" I mean "the change in allele frequencies in a population over time", the population geneticists' definition. I prefer this one because it is the most simple and fundamental, and every other aspect (the appearance of new traits, new species, changes in organismal complexity, etc.) can be explained as a result of that basic, fundamental idea.

So, in summary, I'm not against the species concept, but I am always a little wary of examples that place too much importance on it. But in your use, no overall worries, so long as the nature of the idea of species is understood. :)
 
2012-06-13 12:21:18 AM  

clowncar on fire: Ed Grubermann: Ishkur: whytgai: You know what would be swell? A creationism advocate who actually knows the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Especially the part where abiogenesis isn't agreed upon or even proveable at this point, unlike evolution, which has been tested and says nothing about the ultimate origins of life.

To them, its all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance, and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their value set based on individual issues rather than blanket "check all" subscriptions.

It doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.

Evolution invalidates Genesis. Therefore it has to completely replace Genesis. Even the parts evolution doesn't address. Why? Because they're idiots.

Evolution has thusly been validated as the subcribers to any other beliefs are idiots. You heard it here. You realize that "evolution" is only a theory at this point. Has a few holes in it but appears to cover most of the bases for now...


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-06-13 12:23:22 AM  
So says the online atheist website godisimaginary.com, which has been discussed by the New York Times.

Ah, yes. The visceral hatred of the New York Times. That line jumped out at me.
 
2012-06-13 12:25:52 AM  

clowncar on fire: Evolution has thusly been validated as the subcribers to any other beliefs are idiots. You heard it here. You realize that "evolution" is only a theory at this point. Has a few holes in it but appears to cover most of the bases for now...


Uh, no. Evolution (the change in allele frequencies in a population over time) is an observed fact. It's very easy to observe. Watch a population generation by generation and see the frequencies change, as well as the effects of those changes.

The mechanisms by which it happens contain both observed facts (mutation, migration) and theories (Natural Selection, Artificial Selection, Genetic Drift, etc), and the theories are probably the best supported in ALL of science. Physicists probably have wet dreams about having an actual theory of the mechanisms of gravity as well supported as the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection.

Also, penalty for misusing the word "theory". In science it basically means "as close to whatever the actual truth is that we can get with the data currently available". A good equivalent would be "STRONGLY supported, never refuted despite all attacks, provisional truth" with the understanding that all "truth"s are subject to change with new evidence.
 
2012-06-13 12:26:37 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.

Chimps BEAT us into space, therefore Dr. Zaius is president and "Mighty Joe Young" wins Best Picture every year.


Mighty Joe Young resulted in a Charlize Theron Playboy shoot, so yes it should.
 
2012-06-13 12:29:31 AM  
mamoru: Also, penalty for misusing the word "theory". In science it basically means "as close to whatever the actual truth is that we can get with the data currently available". A good equivalent would be "STRONGLY supported, never refuted despite all attacks, provisional truth" with the understanding that all "truth"s are subject to change with new evidence.

Basically to summarize my summary, in science "theory" basically means "true far beyond any reasonable and even statistical doubt based on current information".
 
2012-06-13 12:31:44 AM  

mamoru: clowncar on fire: Evolution has thusly been validated as the subcribers to any other beliefs are idiots. You heard it here. You realize that "evolution" is only a theory at this point. Has a few holes in it but appears to cover most of the bases for now...

Uh, no. Evolution (the change in allele frequencies in a population over time) is an observed fact. It's very easy to observe. Watch a population generation by generation and see the frequencies change, as well as the effects of those changes.

The mechanisms by which it happens contain both observed facts (mutation, migration) and theories (Natural Selection, Artificial Selection, Genetic Drift, etc), and the theories are probably the best supported in ALL of science. Physicists probably have wet dreams about having an actual theory of the mechanisms of gravity as well supported as the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection.

Also, penalty for misusing the word "theory". In science it basically means "as close to whatever the actual truth is that we can get with the data currently available". A good equivalent would be "STRONGLY supported, never refuted despite all attacks, provisional truth" with the understanding that all "truth"s are subject to change with new evidence.


So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.
 
2012-06-13 12:32:54 AM  
Is there any branch of modern science that the Wing Nuts DON'T hate?
 
2012-06-13 12:33:22 AM  

mamoru: mamoru: Also, penalty for misusing the word "theory". In science it basically means "as close to whatever the actual truth is that we can get with the data currently available". A good equivalent would be "STRONGLY supported, never refuted despite all attacks, provisional truth" with the understanding that all "truth"s are subject to change with new evidence.

Basically to summarize my summary, in science "theory" basically means "true far beyond any reasonable and even statistical doubt based on current information".


He knows. He is farking with you.
 
2012-06-13 12:34:30 AM  
Evolution is scientific fact.

All of sciences current hypothesis about Abiogenesis are not. Currently, all you get is hand-waving and rambling akin to million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years producing the works of Shakespeare. Or in this case, life.
 
2012-06-13 12:36:15 AM  

clowncar on fire: So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.


Did you read the whole post? Because this question is answered in it.

Sabyen91: He knows. He is farking with you.


Shiat. I see. I'll stop wasting my time then.

Farkin' trolls. :(
 
2012-06-13 12:38:48 AM  
It's the arrogance and self-centeredness that gets me.

The underlying belief that god favors humans above everything else he supposedly created.

Whose to say that god doesn't have equal love for "...cancer cells, autism, cerebral palsy, polio, malaria, meningitis, spina bifida, tetanus, and a whole host of other diseases and infections?
What about parasites, tapeworms, ticks, fleas, lice, and poisonous plants?
How about earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, flash floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, droughts, pestilence, land slides, and other natural disasters?"


Hubris ain't pretty to watch or to deal with...and it tends to bring people down in...er...interesting ways.
 
2012-06-13 12:41:08 AM  
Youtube user "TheLivingDinosaur" has addressed dishonest claims issued by Mr. Gallups in several videos (NSFW language).
 
2012-06-13 12:42:19 AM  

clowncar on fire: mamoru: clowncar on fire: Evolution has thusly been validated as the subcribers to any other beliefs are idiots. You heard it here. You realize that "evolution" is only a theory at this point. Has a few holes in it but appears to cover most of the bases for now...

Uh, no. Evolution (the change in allele frequencies in a population over time) is an observed fact. It's very easy to observe. Watch a population generation by generation and see the frequencies change, as well as the effects of those changes.

The mechanisms by which it happens contain both observed facts (mutation, migration) and theories (Natural Selection, Artificial Selection, Genetic Drift, etc), and the theories are probably the best supported in ALL of science. Physicists probably have wet dreams about having an actual theory of the mechanisms of gravity as well supported as the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection.

Also, penalty for misusing the word "theory". In science it basically means "as close to whatever the actual truth is that we can get with the data currently available". A good equivalent would be "STRONGLY supported, never refuted despite all attacks, provisional truth" with the understanding that all "truth"s are subject to change with new evidence.

So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.


Actually, evolution (the progressive change of species over time) is a fact, the theory (that which explains an observed phenomena) is natural selection. And we know more about evolution and the mechanics behind it than we do of gravity. Seriously, in order to attempt to explain gravity, we came up with "gravitons", which are completely hypothetical and yet to be proven. We know something is there, because we can see the effects, but we still are struggling to explain it in a way that fits with everything else we know about physics.

Creationists aren't exactly doubting "evolution", they just have a different theory to explain the same evidence (fossils)... actually, Creationists are the ones who can't agree... are fossils real or a hoax? Did man and dinosaur coexist or not? Do the fossils represent completely unrelated species created from nothing by God as time progressed?
 
2012-06-13 12:43:08 AM  

Dimensio: Youtube user "TheLivingDinosaur" has addressed dishonest claims issued by Mr. Gallups in several videos (NSFW language).


That dude is awesome. The day PhDs got on Youtube was a red letter day for science.
 
2012-06-13 12:47:54 AM  

Corporate Self: All of sciences current hypothesis about Abiogenesis are not. Currently, all you get is hand-waving and rambling akin to million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years producing the works of Shakespeare. Or in this case, life.


True, if by "hand-waving and rambling" you mean "developed over two billion years through complex chemical reactions based on really long, tetravalent carbon chains that bond really well with nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen molecules in the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment that thanks to the turbulent, volcanic nature of early earth, frequently smashed together and through heat and pressure fused into organic peptides that were nothing more than simple chemical polymers (repeating molecular structures, which occur naturally) that actively folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins which were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process to make more of themselves, and in time the accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids for use as insular membranes against harm that eventually became hardened cellular walls which permitted the formation of more symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption including nucleic acid and ribosomes, and once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement."

I mean, come on. Give them a little more credit: They may not understand the exact details of the mechanisms inherent (yet), but it's a far cry from just making shiat up.
 
2012-06-13 12:53:00 AM  
I don't care if somebody played this card already; I've been hoping for a thread where I'd get to try out my own version:

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-13 12:53:41 AM  
I think the latest Laurell K. Hamilton Mary-Sue Anita Blake trashy romance/horror crossover novel is a better waste of money than anything plugged on WND.
 
2012-06-13 12:55:43 AM  

Ishkur: Corporate Self: All of sciences current hypothesis about Abiogenesis are not. Currently, all you get is hand-waving and rambling akin to million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years producing the works of Shakespeare. Or in this case, life.

True, if by "hand-waving and rambling" you mean "developed over two billion years through complex chemical reactions based on really long, tetravalent carbon chains that bond really well with nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen molecules in the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment that thanks to the turbulent, volcanic nature of early earth, frequently smashed together and through heat and pressure fused into organic peptides that were nothing more than simple chemical polymers (repeating molecular structures, which occur naturally) that actively folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins which were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process to make more of themselves, and in time the accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids for use as insular membranes against harm that eventually became hardened cellular walls which permitted the formation of more symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption including nucleic acid and ribosomes, and once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement."

I mean, come on. Give them a little more credit: They may not understand the exact details of the mechanisms inherent (yet), but it's a far cry from just making shiat up.


Like I said, a million monkeys.

Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.
 
2012-06-13 12:58:06 AM  

Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.


Or they could go on reasonable extrapolations of known and observed chemical phenomena, more and more of which that are related to abiogenesis hypotheses are being tested all the time.

Which is totally the same as faith.
 
2012-06-13 01:07:02 AM  

clowncar on fire: Evolution has thusly been validated as the subcribers to any other beliefs are idiots. You heard it here. You realize that "evolution" is only a theory at this point. Has a few holes in it but appears to cover most of the bases for now...


Missed my point, didn't you? That's okay. But I don't expect much from people who toss in the "only a theory" line. They tend to either be idiots or trolls. So, which are you?
 
2012-06-13 01:09:29 AM  

Dan the Schman: Creationists aren't exactly doubting "evolution", they just have a different theory to explain the same evidence (fossils)... actually, Creationists are the ones who can't agree... are fossils real or a hoax? Did man and dinosaur coexist or not? Do the fossils represent completely unrelated species created from nothing by God as time progressed?


The earth was created in 4004 BC; at which time dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together. Sadly, fur bikini clad Raquel Welch's are just a myth. Anyway, when the flood happened, Noah took all the animals on the boat, but sadly the dinosaurs jumped overboard and drowned. The flood waters swept up all the rock, dirt, and buried animals on the now-underwater ground. Since dinosaur bones are the heaviest, they sank the fastest, and were at the bottom when the sediment in the water deposited back down. That's how dinosaur bones ended up buried beneath all the other bones and you don't find human and dinosaur fossils next to each other in the ground.

Now I already know that next you'll bring up silly questions like how did the ocean-going dinosaurs like the loch ness monster drown, or why we have written records or can find archeological evidence of cities older than the flood that weren't destroyed by the deluge. And the answer to those questions is I never got the answers because the bell rang and the pastor had to leave the Sunday School class to go give the week's sermon.
 
2012-06-13 01:09:53 AM  

clowncar on fire: So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.


Well, that answers my question: idiot it is.
 
2012-06-13 01:11:42 AM  
I am a natural part of the universe. If someone wants to call the universe God, that's fine. I don't see why that means there's no room for anything to change in any way or why, if God is so powerful, he couldn't create something like evolution.

If God created the universe, why wouldn't he want his creations to be capable of understanding it? If you were God, would you fill the universe with idiots that accept only what they tell themselves is true?
 
2012-06-13 01:15:01 AM  

mamoru: Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.

Or they could go on reasonable extrapolations of known and observed chemical phenomena, more and more of which that are related to abiogenesis hypotheses are being tested all the time.

Which is totally the same as faith.


Its, at best, an educated guess. To me science's current answer that "a billion monkeys" gave way to the complex coding of life is much less believable than some unknown intelligent entity had a hand in it.
 
2012-06-13 01:15:48 AM  

JRoo: I am a natural part of the universe. If someone wants to call the universe God, that's fine. I don't see why that means there's no room for anything to change in any way or why, if God is so powerful, he couldn't create something like evolution.

If God created the universe, why wouldn't he want his creations to be capable of understanding it? If you were God, would you fill the universe with idiots that accept only what they tell themselves is true?


fark yeah. If I were God my creation would be for my entertainment...
 
2012-06-13 01:16:51 AM  

Corporate Self: Ishkur: Corporate Self: All of sciences current hypothesis about Abiogenesis are not. Currently, all you get is hand-waving and rambling akin to million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years producing the works of Shakespeare. Or in this case, life.

True, if by "hand-waving and rambling" you mean "developed over two billion years through complex chemical reactions based on really long, tetravalent carbon chains that bond really well with nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen molecules in the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment that thanks to the turbulent, volcanic nature of early earth, frequently smashed together and through heat and pressure fused into organic peptides that were nothing more than simple chemical polymers (repeating molecular structures, which occur naturally) that actively folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins which were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process to make more of themselves, and in time the accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids for use as insular membranes against harm that eventually became hardened cellular walls which permitted the formation of more symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption including nucleic acid and ribosomes, and once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement."

I mean, come on. Give them a little more credit: They may not understand the exact details of the mechanisms inherent (yet), but it's a far cry from just making shiat up.

Like I said, a million monkeys.

Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.


Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

What do you believe? Young Earth Creationism? Prime Mover? Do you believe in evolution?

Because if you concede that Earth has been around for billions of years, and the mechanism for evolution is built into our DNA, then your skepticism of abiogenesis seems disingenuous at best.

Also, you do realize that if given unlimited time, a million monkeys on a million typewriters typing out all of the individual words that comprised the complete works of Shakespeare is a mathematical inevitability, right? I mean, it's not like anyone is saying the monkeys BUILT the typewriters and then started typing.
 
2012-06-13 01:17:57 AM  

Dan the Schman: Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?


Ding ding ding.
 
2012-06-13 01:19:47 AM  

Corporate Self: To me science's current answer that "a billion monkeys" gave way to the complex coding of life is much less believable than some unknown intelligent entity had a hand in it.


I guess it's convenient that you have no curiosity about the origin of the unknown intelligent entity, and so can ignore any complexities that arise from such questions about that entity. :-/
 
2012-06-13 01:22:31 AM  

Dan the Schman: Also, you do realize that if given unlimited time, a million monkeys on a million typewriters typing out all of the individual words that comprised the complete works of Shakespeare is a mathematical inevitability, right? I mean, it's not like anyone is saying the monkeys BUILT the typewriters and then started typing.


A few billion years is hardly infinity so your "anything possible will happen" holds little water in the actual argument. Hell, the same concept could be used to argue that spontaneous generation God is an inevitable certainty!
 
2012-06-13 01:22:35 AM  

Godscrack: [img99.imageshack.us image 449x524]


Thank you, I needed a Father's Day gift.
 
2012-06-13 01:23:29 AM  

mamoru: Corporate Self: To me science's current answer that "a billion monkeys" gave way to the complex coding of life is much less believable than some unknown intelligent entity had a hand in it.

I guess it's convenient that you have no curiosity about the origin of the unknown intelligent entity, and so can ignore any complexities that arise from such questions about that entity. :-/


You are wrong, but I refuse to let science smugly "smooth over the rough spots".

Deal in truth or go home.
 
2012-06-13 01:31:08 AM  

Corporate Self: Dan the Schman: Also, you do realize that if given unlimited time, a million monkeys on a million typewriters typing out all of the individual words that comprised the complete works of Shakespeare is a mathematical inevitability, right? I mean, it's not like anyone is saying the monkeys BUILT the typewriters and then started typing.

A few billion years is hardly infinity so your "anything possible will happen" holds little water in the actual argument. Hell, the same concept could be used to argue that spontaneous generation God is an inevitable certainty!


Not one with a set of balls.
 
2012-06-13 01:33:25 AM  

Ishkur: To them, its all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance, and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their value set based on individual issues rather than blanket "check all" subscriptions.

It doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.



Except that the vast majority of religious people (okay, Judeo-Christians - I don't have enough experience to make determinations about other religions and the relevant behavior of their adherents) pick and choose from their sacred texts to suit themselves. So that makes them hypocrites and/or idiots.
 
2012-06-13 01:36:11 AM  

Corporate Self: Dan the Schman: Also, you do realize that if given unlimited time, a million monkeys on a million typewriters typing out all of the individual words that comprised the complete works of Shakespeare is a mathematical inevitability, right? I mean, it's not like anyone is saying the monkeys BUILT the typewriters and then started typing.

A few billion years is hardly infinity so your "anything possible will happen" holds little water in the actual argument. Hell, the same concept could be used to argue that spontaneous generation God is an inevitable certainty!


Ignoring everything else in my post doesn't exactly discourage the theory that you're trolling. Comparing the spontaneous generation of a single-celled organism capable of reproduction and adaptation to the spontaneous generation of an Omnipotent and Omniscient Being lends even more credence.

You know what, let's talk gravity, since you care so much about truth and hate that lousy "smoothing over of rough spots". Who are they trying to brainwash with this "graviton" BS, am I right?
 
2012-06-13 01:38:12 AM  

Dan the Schman: Corporate Self: Dan the Schman: Also, you do realize that if given unlimited time, a million monkeys on a million typewriters typing out all of the individual words that comprised the complete works of Shakespeare is a mathematical inevitability, right? I mean, it's not like anyone is saying the monkeys BUILT the typewriters and then started typing.

A few billion years is hardly infinity so your "anything possible will happen" holds little water in the actual argument. Hell, the same concept could be used to argue that spontaneous generation God is an inevitable certainty!

Ignoring everything else in my post doesn't exactly discourage the theory that you're trolling. Comparing the spontaneous generation of a single-celled organism capable of reproduction and adaptation to the spontaneous generation of an Omnipotent and Omniscient Being lends even more credence.

You know what, let's talk gravity, since you care so much about truth and hate that lousy "smoothing over of rough spots". Who are they trying to brainwash with this "graviton" BS, am I right?


Another guy that is farking with people.
 
2012-06-13 01:41:11 AM  

Corporate Self: Like I said, a million monkeys.


If you don't understand anything about the field, just say so.

But don't press your conceit on the scientists actually doing the work. Argumentum ad ignorantiam is no way to go through life, son.
 
2012-06-13 01:42:20 AM  

Corporate Self: Deal in truth or go home.


I'll take the "educated guesses" based on extrapolations of observed phenomena and observed very well supported explanations of nature of science over the wild-ass evidence-free guesses that you propose.

You do not deal in truth at all. You deliberately distort how science even approaches the question of abiogenesis, making non sequitur "million monkeys" arguments and you provide no evidence or even logic for your own suggestion that some unknown, unobserved intelligent entity did it so science must be wrong. You present this as an argument from disbelief, and it is presumably based on faith.

Science isn't claiming truth. Science isn't claiming to be right. Science is positing and testing as well as it can explanations based on evidence. Science accepts an explanation as provisionally true if the current body of evidence supports it, it is testable, it has not been refuted, and it explains more than the previous explanation which it is replacing. Science does not hide these aspects of how it works. Science does not claim truth. And science is not dishonest in how it tries to explain the universe.

Accepting something as provisionally true based on evidence and extrapolation from known phenomena is not the same as the faith you are using to believe that $Unknown_Intelligence did it because I can't understand the complexity involved. You are being dishonest for even suggesting that the two are equivalent.

You want to deal in truth? Physician, heal thyself.
 
2012-06-13 01:48:11 AM  

fusillade762: snuff3r: TFA: "This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. E. coli long-term evolution experiment^

I think he might be referring to this:

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

Though I could be mistaken because I won't click on WND links.


Ahh, thanks for the link. Not seen that before.
 
2012-06-13 01:48:57 AM  

Corporate Self: To me science's current answer that "a billion monkeys"


That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Furthermore, the monkeys on typewriters writing Shakespeare parable is only supposed to be a philosophical demonstration of chaos theory (that anything infinite can accomplish anything finite, by virtue of it being infinite), not an actual proof for asserting incalculable odds (whereit be mathematical, physical or biological). It doesn't actually have anything to do with life or evolution.

So stop using it.
 
2012-06-13 02:12:03 AM  
Forgive me if this is an illogical argument, however...

I always find it interesting when people who do not believe in evolution will own specific breeds of animals. Logically, the selective breeding of the ancestor of dogs has led to many, many breeds that look nothing like each other.

retrieverman.files.wordpress.com

Chihuahua and a Great Dane. Yes, they're still the same species and they COULD still interbreed but dear god, would you want them to? Could they even do so without assistance? A male Great Dane would likely kill a female chihuahua and a male chihuahua would need a stepladder to get to a female Great Dane.
It could also be stated that some breeds of dogs, such as English Bulldogs, can't even naturally breed anymore. A genetic dead end.

The selective breeding for traits we find desirable could be said to mirror what nature inflicts on animals, which eventually leads to a species split where animals can no longer successfully interbreed. We just haven't driven any animals quite that far yet.

/have we?
 
2012-06-13 02:21:28 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: consider the evolutionist's proposition that all of life, all twenty million species of life and all their subsystems and sub-sub systems, originated (says the atheist) from an accidental, random, unpurposed, unplanned conglomeration of chemicals conjoining in a mystical, magical pool of mud, billions of years ago," said author Carl Gallups.

"This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!

Silly WND. It took over 150 years for that "mud" to spawn life. Probably about 250 or even 300 years!


Plus, um, we have in fact replicated it several times. Link, Link, Linkety Link.

The problem with the "but scientists have never observed [x phenomenon]" argument is that, if you're still using that argument 50 years later, it's just gonna make you look stupid since chances are someone heard the argument the first time and went and observed them some [x] for your convenience. Just because the great minds of western science doubted the existence of the platypus and were still legit scientists doesn't change the fact that denying the existence of the platypus now just makes you an ignorant yokel retard.
 
2012-06-13 02:22:56 AM  
er, just because the great minds of western science once doubted, rather. Accidentally the whole phrase there.
 
2012-06-13 02:36:05 AM  

Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.


Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?
 
2012-06-13 02:36:32 AM  
"Since around 1800, ideas of evolutionism had been denounced as examples of dangerous materialism, which undermined natural theology and the argument from design, threatening the current moral and social order. Such ideas were propagated by lower class Radicals seeking to overturn divine justification of the (aristocratic) social order."

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-06-13 02:42:02 AM  

Corporate Self: If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


The light's better here.
 
2012-06-13 02:44:17 AM  

eraser8: I read through that who stupid article, and all I saw was an argument from personal incredulity.

That is, because Carl Gallups can't conceive of something, a god must have done it.

I also loved this gem from Gallups: "this notion that somehow the Christian is dedicated to a belief in a magic man in the sky is nothing more than a straw man argument fallaciously set up by the atheist. My book systematically exposes and demolishes this straw man argument."

I would love -- just LOVE -- to hear him explain how that argument is a straw man. I'd love to hear how he "systematically exposes and demolishes" it.

You can dress up your theology all you want, Pastor Gallups -- but if you believe in creationism, you believe in magic. If you believe in a god, you believe in a magic man. Maybe he's not "in the sky." Maybe he's on Titan. Maybe he's in France. Maybe he's not even a "he." But, your view of our existence absolutely hinges on magic. To argue otherwise is patently absurd.


I can guess what his proof is. It is written in the good book, the word of God, so it must be true.

That is what passes for logic with the brainwashed.
 
2012-06-13 02:49:26 AM  

Corporate Self: If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


You invented a way to detect small quantities of complex organic molecules from several light years away? Because the rest of us can barely manage to tell if there's a simple three-atom molecule on the moon without creating a giant explosion in the specific area we think exists.

Or are you getting this magical ability to search places outside Earth using your mutant power of teleportation? Because I hate to break it to you, but science doesn't have that either. All we've checked so far for life is a vanishingly small section of a very limited chemical range of an arbitrarily selected bit of Mars and an even smaller bit of the moon. If you want to make stupid assertions about how we've looked everywhere and haven't found anything you're going to have to wait another four or five centuries at minimum, right now we can't even get to most of the planets we know about, much less explore them in detail.
 
2012-06-13 02:50:20 AM  

Corporate Self: Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


Those goddamn goalposts WERE JUST HERE!

For future reference, you're a lousy troll. I mean, Bevets is more entertaining than you. You really should be embarrassed. If I didn't have OCD, I would have walked away a long time ago.

A) We currently don't have the technology to determine if planets outside our solar system have life, and even the tech we have for detecting it within our solar system is pretty weak. We have found evidence of life once existing on Mars, though.

B) We have discovered several planets that have environments we deem encouraging for life, which is truly incredible considering there are trillions of planets in the Universe.

C) The Universe is nearly 14 billion years old; dozens of civilizations could evolve and rise and self-destruct in that period, not to mention stray meteors, comets, earthquakes, volcanoes, and literally thousands of other things that can wipe out all lifeforms on a planet.

So there are three, out of dozens, of reasons why we haven't discovered life on another planet in the less than 70 years we've been exploring space.
 
2012-06-13 02:50:35 AM  
originated (says the atheist) from an accidental, random, unpurposed, unplanned conglomeration of chemicals conjoining in a mystical, magical pool of mud, billions of years ago,

No evolutionist says this because this is not evolution. This is abiogenesis. Aside from that this statement is not true in another sense, it's not chance or accident, although chance does play a role. Things happen for a reason and in this case that reason is the electromagnetic and biochemical properties of things. There's nothing magic about it. Admittedly its not well understood because it happened billions of years ago over the course of hundreds of millions of years. You'll forgive us if science hasn't quite got the details of that process down yet considering how difficult it is to study.

After that we launch in to the standard stupid age old argument that because science hasn't figured it out yet then it must be because its impossible or beyond science.

Know what I remember? The very first time I heard this argument was how little we understood DNA in spite of all the research. That was a decade before we heard the words "Human Genome Project". The things we now know about DNA would have been called unlikely or impossible to know by people who knew what they were talking about... Within my own life time. That is to say that in the space of my life we have gone from something that was "beyond" the ability of science... to being well understood by science.

By the way anyone who wants to make the claim that because we haven't figured something out yet that the answer is "God Did It", I would like to propose that "Ted Did It", Ted is the name of the alien who created the big bang while trying to make beer in his apartment 14+ billion years ago. You have your unsubstantiated idea and I have mine. (Credit to Thinking Atheist, a Youtube Channel for this line of "thought")
 
2012-06-13 02:50:36 AM  

anfrind: Seems to me more like a kludge than a proper patch. Religion is a solution that was devised by people who didn't really understand how the system works (heck, even with modern science we don't fully understand how it works!), and as a result it has a lot of unintended side-effects.


The difference between a kludge, a patch, and DLC?

Marketing.
 
2012-06-13 02:53:41 AM  

Corporate Self: Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


Maybe because we've only been able to examine one solar system with seven other planets for life, none of which even have liquid water (life doesn't even exist on this planet with a complete absence of water).
 
2012-06-13 02:55:38 AM  

eraser8: But, I still don't see 6,000 years as being sufficient time to make any sort of change that would catch the notice of young earthers.


Link

There can be no argument. Macroevolution has been studied, observed, and repeated in the laboratory. It is as scientific as gravity and heliocentricism. It's not a parlor trick or magick; it's simply watching an organism adapt to environmental pressure.

If anyone can be confronted with evidence and still walk away thinking that it takes longer than 6000 years to make any significant macroevolutionary change, let alone that evolution in its entirety is false, you can safely label them as an idiot.
 
2012-06-13 03:04:09 AM  

Nem Wan: [keithpp.files.wordpress.com image 450x502]


Well, I'd like to see CHIMPS build an orbital nuclear weapons platform!
 
2012-06-13 03:10:45 AM  

Corporate Self: Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?
If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


First of all, just because it's a natural undirected process does not mean that it has to be common. You're making another fallacy of probability. Rare natural events happen in the Universe all the time, without the need to invoke divine providence.

Secondly, we've only just started finding other planets within the last 10-15 years and we're not even equipped to look for life (yet) since we're not really sure what to look for. What are you expecting to find in such a short timeframe, with such shallow searching parameters? It's like Columbus turning around after 100 miles and concluding that there is no western route to Asia (or American continents for that matter). We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what's out there.

We have NO certain data yet on the likelihood of life's occurrence in the Universe. Learn the god damn Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox before making such an assertion.
 
2012-06-13 03:14:59 AM  

Ishkur: We have NO certain data yet on the likelihood of life's occurrence in the Universe. Learn the god damn Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox before making such an assertion.


Don't forget the Calvin Paradox

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
 
2012-06-13 03:17:09 AM  
Here's this entire thread, compressed into three minutes and fifty-eight seconds.
 
2012-06-13 03:18:51 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-06-13 03:21:06 AM  

Corporate Self: Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


Oh yeah, well, if God exists, then why haven't I read the Bible?
 
2012-06-13 03:22:50 AM  

dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.


Thank you, yesterday's Reddit thread about the Smithsonian tour.
 
2012-06-13 03:27:47 AM  

buckler: Nem Wan: [keithpp.files.wordpress.com image 450x502]

Well, I'd like to see CHIMPS build an orbital nuclear weapons platform!


i1091.photobucket.com
Nyea!Nyea!
 
2012-06-13 03:40:02 AM  

Corporate Self: Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


I believe that you have made a particularly unreasonable assumption about the process in assuming that it has to be commonplace. There is no reason to presume that whatever the processes that occurs during abiogenesis that they need to be common or abundant.
 
2012-06-13 04:08:45 AM  
It's cute when someone who doesn't understand science tries to debate science. See: creationists
 
2012-06-13 04:08:58 AM  

Fury Pilot: Corporate Self: Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?

I believe that you have made a particularly unreasonable assumption about the process in assuming that it has to be commonplace. There is no reason to presume that whatever the processes that occurs during abiogenesis that they need to be common or abundant.


And in any case, even if it were common and abundant, that doesn't mean we'd see it more than once in the infinitesimally tiny corner of the universe with which we are (sort of) familiar.
 
2012-06-13 04:10:20 AM  
FTFA:

---

I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all."

---

What irrefutable proof of the existence of God might look like:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-06-13 04:14:11 AM  

Corporate Self: Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


How many other worlds have we really explored? We've taken pictures from orbit of our neighbors in the solar system, and sent rovers to Mars...but, even in our own solar system, that's less than a drop in the bucket. We know of the existence of other planets, including a good number that have the potential to be Earth-like, but as of yet, we have no way to determine whether or not there's life on them, beyond hoping that they use the kind of communications we do. There could be aliens on a planet around the next star over, and there's a good chance that we won't know for a LONG time, if ever.
 
2012-06-13 04:14:15 AM  

Wangiss: Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin


How about "Hetero Sapiens"? Because, thanks to customization, we'll all be *very* different from each other.

Bat people.
Dolphin people.
People with giant brains.
Furries ...

/we already have whale people
 
2012-06-13 04:17:29 AM  

Uncle Tractor: I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God.



He all-capsed "prove" -- our arguments are now rendered invalid.

If only Darwin had used caps lock more to drive home his points, we wouldn't still be debating this, with half of our dumbfark hick country believing a magician living in space clouds is controlling the evolution of Earth's 10's of millions of species.
 
2012-06-13 04:18:51 AM  

Ringshadow: Chihuahua and a Great Dane. Yes, they're still the same species and they COULD still interbreed but dear god, would you want them to?


I'm sure there's some people who would. Rule 34.

/pig and elephant DNA just won't splice
 
2012-06-13 04:37:03 AM  
The anti-science dumbasses in this thread have absolutely no problem trusting the science that is all around them. Every single thing in your life -- plastics, computers, electricity, medicine, metals, flight, combustion -- literally EVERYTHING that you see and touch and wear and even eat, every single day, was at one point nothing more than a scientific theory that somebody figured out. It was all peer-reviewed, tested, challenged, just like every other scientific theory, and you have no problem believing in all of it.

But the second science challenges a book of fables written by a desert-dwelling sand cult 2,000 farking years ago, it's "WHOA, I DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE NOW!" To fark with modern science -- you're siding with some sheep herders whose knowledge of the world began and ended in the mud hut village they spent their entire lives living in.

The same schools of thought and methodology that led to your very ability to live a modern life are the same elements that are telling you that evolution is real. You look like an idiot in denial by refusing to accept it, which is made even worse by the faux-intellectual vocabulary you awkwardly type on Fark in the middle of the night.
 
2012-06-13 04:38:30 AM  

BMulligan: Fury Pilot: Corporate Self: Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?

I believe that you have made a particularly unreasonable assumption about the process in assuming that it has to be commonplace. There is no reason to presume that whatever the processes that occurs during abiogenesis that they need to be common or abundant.

And in any case, even if it were common and abundant, that doesn't mean we'd see it more than once in the infinitesimally tiny corner of the universe with which we are (sort of) familiar.


True.

\ I just couldn't be bothered addressing the second assumption :)
 
2012-06-13 05:07:00 AM  
home.comcast.net

/Not mine.
 
2012-06-13 05:32:30 AM  

Bucky Katt: Is there any branch of modern science that the Wing Nuts DON'T hate?


I just want to know how this guy thinks he can "scientifically" prove the existence of God, since he hates science so much. What method is he going to use, I wonder? Even "theology" is technically a science, and after that, what's left?
 
2012-06-13 06:07:26 AM  

fusillade762: /pig and elephant DNA just won't splice


Actually, I bet it will. Based on the fact that removing the eyeless* gene from a fruitfly and splicing in the pax6 gene from a mouse will result in normal eye development in the fruitfly using the mouse's gene, I imagine replacing an elephant's pax6 with a pig's would cause no problems at all. DNA is DNA.

:p

*please note the annoying habit of geneticists naming genes for what happens when they go wrong. eyeless is the name of the gene which causes eye development in fruitflies, and is so named because when it malfunctions you get flies without eyes

/pedantic
//yes, I know what you meant :p ;)
 
2012-06-13 06:09:54 AM  
Oops... formatting fail. Let's try the main part of that again, while leaving the footnote and slashies above...

fusillade762: /pig and elephant DNA just won't splice


Actually, I bet it will. Based on the fact that removing the eyeless* gene from a fruitfly and splicing in the pax6 gene from a mouse will result in normal eye development in the fruitfly using the mouse's gene, I imagine replacing an elephant's pax6 with a pig's would cause no problems at all. DNA is DNA.

:p

;)

/again, yes, I know what you meant :p
 
2012-06-13 06:12:43 AM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: It boils down to one thing...Micheal J Fox has no Elvis in him.


No, but he can do a pretty decent "Joe Cocker".
 
2012-06-13 06:36:14 AM  

jso2897: 3_Butt_Cheeks: It boils down to one thing...Micheal J Fox has no Elvis in him.

No, but he can do a pretty decent "Joe Cocker".


Nah, his voice is too shaky.

Oh.
 
2012-06-13 06:37:12 AM  

Corporate Self: Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


Um, because we have barely explored a tiny fraction of a percent of the universe? Do you think that might have something to do with it?
 
2012-06-13 06:40:32 AM  
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ~Richard Dawkins

"Religion leads you to a glorious place. Science leads you to killing people." ~Ben Stein

One was vilified for his statement. Nearly immediately after the other said his, his Christian network interviewer said, "Good word. Good word."

Whose word is truer?
 
2012-06-13 06:42:10 AM  

clowncar on fire: The first living form- niether creationists nor evolutionists have an answer.


Stop lying.

Or get educated, one or the other. Either way, you're wrong.
 
2012-06-13 06:45:00 AM  

Corporate Self: Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


Who said it was "inevitable"? The only thing he said was "improbable != impossible." That's one of the chief creationist arguments, and I guarantee you not one person who makes it has ever taken a probability or statistics class in their life.

/This moment is infinitesimally possible. Yet here we are.
 
2012-06-13 07:06:47 AM  
This thread is 'proof' to my 'theory' that creationism is at its core a result of lack of intelligence and education. It's difficult to make this statement without insulting people (and not to sound like a condescending dark).
Even at a semantic level, the level of obfuscation, willful misrepresentations, ignorance of even most basic facts support my theory that creationism orginates from lack of education and propagates because of systematic abuse of those affected.
 
2012-06-13 07:09:00 AM  
"And this notion that somehow the Christian is dedicated to a belief in a magic man in the sky is nothing more than a straw man argument fallaciously set up by the atheist. My book systematically exposes and demolishes this straw man argument."

With an army of my own straw men.
 
2012-06-13 07:09:27 AM  
...condescending fark...
 
2012-06-13 07:13:54 AM  
Does WND run articles from anyone who isn't trying to fleece some book sales off the rubes?
 
2012-06-13 07:20:48 AM  
This whole evolution-or-Genesis thing was interesting...

...back when I was 12.
 
2012-06-13 07:25:40 AM  

stoli n coke: Does WND run articles from anyone who isn't trying to fleece some book sales off the rubes?


yes, occasionaly there is DVDs, and Chuck Norris offering medical advice.
 
2012-06-13 07:29:23 AM  

IlGreven: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ~Richard Dawkins
"Religion leads you to a glorious place. Science leads you to killing people." ~Ben Stein

Whose word is truer?


Easy: Dawkins. Because we have proof that people went to the moon. We do not have any evidence that anyone's gone anywhere when they die.

There are four assertions here. Three are verifiable. Only Stein's assertion on religion is specious.
 
2012-06-13 07:33:35 AM  

Wangiss: If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin


Homo Sapiens OptionsPackage42iensis
 
2012-06-13 07:35:17 AM  
Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.
 
2012-06-13 07:37:22 AM  
There is no intelligent life on this planet. We prove that daily.
 
2012-06-13 07:47:22 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: There is no intelligent life on this planet. We prove that daily.


Uhhh... The mice would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-06-13 07:54:01 AM  
I was going to read this, but I got distracted and disturbed by Joseph Farah's mustache. He should shave it off before it crawls up his nose and eats his brain.
 
2012-06-13 08:05:27 AM  
Chimps go "Ooga ooga!" a lot, much like Republicans, therefore Sarah Palin is automatically Presdident and Obama has to retroactively star as an uncredited extra in Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes remake.
 
2012-06-13 08:10:49 AM  
If god created us he sucks or is lazy

The end
 
2012-06-13 08:11:22 AM  

vernonFL: I don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics either!


Meh. Get back to me when you no longer believe in gravity.
 
2012-06-13 08:13:02 AM  
Reading the logic some people use to discount evolution, makes me believe we did come from apes... See the crap being thrown around still
 
2012-06-13 08:21:22 AM  
Today's Evolution is:
D-evolution= Being reasonable to the point of whimpiness when faced with an opponent who hates you for no real reason at all except that they love hatin.
R-evolution= Slinging Poo and otherwise behaving like real shyts
 
2012-06-13 08:23:21 AM  

Bucky Katt: Is there any branch of modern science that the Wing Nuts DON'T hate?


Video streaming technology that allows their computer to become a Magic Sex Box is probably OK.
 
2012-06-13 08:34:26 AM  
And I as I read further...

There's something else here that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection favor the species that is most able to reproduce successfully. Whether that species is advanced enough to build communications satellites or of such limited ability that it operates like an insect means nothing. Assuming that evolution favors advanced intelligence is like assuming it favors large size or the ability to digest wood. Now being intelligent certainly does give you some advantages, rather huge ones in fact, but this author seems to think that the end all goal of evolution and natural selection is to produce human like levels of intelligence when its not.
 
2012-06-13 08:34:56 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Accepts evolution, therefore isn't Christian.
 
2012-06-13 08:37:42 AM  
I really desperately want to click links to WingNutDaily sometimes just to laugh at the stupid people, but I don't want to encourage this kind of behavior by creating the illusion that I support it in a more general sense.

They're kind of like the Jackass of politics. I want to see it, but I don't want to encourage it.....
 
2012-06-13 08:38:01 AM  

Pharque-it: fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?

The religious would tell you they're not looking for factual truth in the scientific, material sense. The ones that try fail miserably. Most are looking for purpose in life, even hope. Science isn't going to provide that.

Wow!

The scientific purpose of life is life itself! Reproduction, adaptation etc. Science is certainly providing that. And hope is a manifestation of awareness. But you do not need awareness for survival and evolution.


The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily. Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.
 
2012-06-13 08:45:03 AM  
"In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!"

HHHAAAAHAAAHAA!!! WOOOHOOOOO...

HAHAHAHAHAHA... damn, you are a dumb person...
 
2012-06-13 08:55:50 AM  

randomjsa: And I as I read further...

There's something else here that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection.


You don't say.

Ignorance? At WND?
 
2012-06-13 08:59:06 AM  

Kibbler: This whole evolution-or-Genesis thing was interesting...

...back when I was 12.


A few years ago I stumbled upon a show about creation on a religious station (I was channel surfing). Here was their "logic":

1) Either the creation story in Genesis or Evolution must be true
2) Since it can't be proven that God doesn't exist, the story in Genesis must be true

I think I had brain cells commit suicide after hearing this.
 
2012-06-13 09:00:19 AM  
I believe God created the world through evolution.

Head assplosion.
 
2012-06-13 09:00:24 AM  
The politics tab needs to evolve some more headlines.
 
2012-06-13 09:09:20 AM  

fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily. Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.


I was with you until you said "All science would offer is . . . " That's complete bullshiat. Science gives us tools we can use to improve our lives, reduce human suffering, make the world safer and expand our knowledge of the universe. Science gives us medicine, food that grows in adverse conditions, technology that allows family to communicate long distance, and lesbian porn. How can you claim that science can only offer the knowledge of a miserable life?

One could argue that science also gives us the means to cause suffering - but since religion often provides the reason for doing so, you aren't going to get much traction there. The truth is that science gives the human spirit the means to achieve its greatest dreams. Religion- at best - merely guides the dream.
 
2012-06-13 09:09:48 AM  
This thread is reinforces my belief that people need to go to their nearest community college and sign up for a Philosophy of Science class.

The thing that makes science cool...the very thing that gives it the edge over religion and superstition...is that the aim of science is not to give us truth or facts, but rather models and best guesses that can be discarded when they cease predicting phenomena.

When confronted with Hume's "Problem of Induction" (white v. black swans), science gracefully sidesteps the issue. On the other hand, religion promises short cuts and superstitious paths to "truth." With science, there exists possible observations that can render hypotheses and theories false; with religion, the circularity of their thought processes (and adherence to faith as a virtue) means that there is no observation that can convince a religious mind that they are wrong.

To me, it's easy to see that there needs to be a concerted effort to rescue people from the brainwashing effects of religion. For a developed nation, the US tolerates too much ignorance of science.
 
2012-06-13 09:16:44 AM  
If evolution is true, then why are my parents still alive? Explain that.
 
2012-06-13 09:17:28 AM  

daveUSMC: I believe God created the world through evolution.

Head assplosion.


So you moved him back from differentiation of life to creation of life. What are you going to do when science figures out how life actually came to be through natural processes? Move him back to the universal singularity? What about when we understand that, move him back to brane collisions? And when we understand that, then what? What are you going to do if some day we have the capability to mathematically explain, map and predict everything in the universe from its smallest binding forces to its biggest explosions? Then what?

Constantly moving god back a step in response to new information is short-sighted and only ensures that this sort of retarded argument just keeps happening. You either believe your god created everything, you don't, or you don't believe there's a god at all. Anything else is just lying to yourself. At some point you're either going to have to accept that either whatever you think god is didn't do these things and isn't a natural part of our universe or anything in it at all or you'll have to conclude that science is lying to you. As long as humans continue to have the capability of unraveling the rules of the universe to a more specific degree, there is no constant middle ground you can stand on.
 
2012-06-13 09:28:59 AM  

randomjsa: And I as I read further...

There's something else here that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection favor the species that is most able to reproduce successfully. Whether that species is advanced enough to build communications satellites or of such limited ability that it operates like an insect means nothing. Assuming that evolution favors advanced intelligence is like assuming it favors large size or the ability to digest wood. Now being intelligent certainly does give you some advantages, rather huge ones in fact, but this author seems to think that the end all goal of evolution and natural selection is to produce human like levels of intelligence when its not.


You're quite right - now, I think it's a somewhat forgivable fallacy, since intelligence HAS proven to be a pretty formidable tool of survival and adaptation. But, yeah - there IS no "ultimate weapon" in the struggle for genetic survival. It's a "proof of the pudding" kind of deal.
And if there's anything that's generally well-understood on Fark, it's pudding.
 
2012-06-13 09:32:44 AM  

Splinshints: daveUSMC: I believe God created the world through evolution.

Head assplosion.

So you moved him back from differentiation of life to creation of life. What are you going to do when science figures out how life actually came to be through natural processes? Move him back to the universal singularity? What about when we understand that, move him back to brane collisions? And when we understand that, then what? What are you going to do if some day we have the capability to mathematically explain, map and predict everything in the universe from its smallest binding forces to its biggest explosions? Then what?

Constantly moving god back a step in response to new information is short-sighted and only ensures that this sort of retarded argument just keeps happening. You either believe your god created everything, you don't, or you don't believe there's a god at all. Anything else is just lying to yourself. At some point you're either going to have to accept that either whatever you think god is didn't do these things and isn't a natural part of our universe or anything in it at all or you'll have to conclude that science is lying to you. As long as humans continue to have the capability of unraveling the rules of the universe to a more specific degree, there is no constant middle ground you can stand on.


Truly, you care about this way more than I do.

Do I really portend to know or care to know exactly how God scientifically worked/works? No. I have my faith, which I don't think has to intrude on science. Maybe I will have to revise some ideas that I have about my faith along the way, as new scientific discoveries come out. Fine. If you will allow me to hold my religious beliefs- in which I find great personal strength and comfort; through which I try to be a better fellow human being; and of which I do not attempt to foist upon others- and somehow find it in yourself to not be a condescending burglar of turds, I would be most appreciative.
 
2012-06-13 09:32:47 AM  
You know it's getting close to the election year when right-wing propaganda outlets start pandering to creationists.
 
2012-06-13 09:34:55 AM  
But, the space program was a 100% big government funded program that was wildly successful and brought tremendous innovation and technological advancement.

WHO'S YOUR GOD NOW?!?!
 
2012-06-13 09:43:43 AM  

s2s2s2: The politics tab needs to evolve some more headlines.


Seconded.
 
2012-06-13 09:45:10 AM  
It IS hard to believe that the people who run World Nutbag Daily share a common ancestor with those who got us to the moon.
 
2012-06-13 09:45:53 AM  

fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily.


Such as? And before you drop that old canard "Why are we here?" please be ready to answer the counter questions "Why do think there has to be a reason?"and "Why do you think that is a question that science will never be able to answer?".

Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

And science is in a better position to actually make that person's life better. Scientific advances leading to medical advances lead to easier, cheaper, medical treatments that can (and many people believe should) be made available to all via social programs. Such social programs themselves are not necessarily science or religion dependent, but things like basic universal healthcare would be building off the fruits of science, not religion.

And, if science can be said to imply or inspire any overall messages about life, "you're going to live a miserable life and then die. Sorry" couldn't be further from the truth.

Science says "Hey, even you, poor miserable person, can learn to understand and appreciate the awesomeness of the Universe, because Science will not tell you that there are things you are not allowed to know or attempt to learn. Science itself cannot make your life automatically better, but it can say, 'hey, here are some tools. You now have the the means to do your best to make your life better. Best of luck to you.' And what will religion tell you? 'Hey there, it's OK to suffer and be miserable now, because things will be much better after you die. So, don't bother trying to better your miserable lot, but instead be content with it so you can enjoy bliss in the afterlife. How do I know? Oh, some guy wrote it down in a book a couple thousand years ago.' Certainly a good message for those who are not poor and miserable, because as long as the poor and miserable believe that, you won't have to worry about them rising up and upsetting things for all of you."

/but, you are probably right that science will never push aside religion completely. Nor is that its goal or intent
//science is merely attempting to explain the universe in a useful and consistent way. Any religion falling by the wayside due to that is merely a side-effect
 
2012-06-13 09:46:54 AM  
This has probably been covered, but this has not business being a political discussion.

We SHOULD be talking about the fact that Chuck Norris is predicting for a border invasion. derp
 
2012-06-13 09:56:51 AM  
I ain't never seen a monkey give birth to a man.

I love that old chestnut, cracks me up every time.

Perlin Noise: "In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!"

HHHAAAAHAAAHAA!!! WOOOHOOOOO...

HAHAHAHAHAHA... damn, you are a dumb person...


That's another one of my favorites, if you can't figure it out over a weekend it can't be true. Oh and forget finding new information, if you find new information that helps you better understand the theory it means the whole thing is invalid. That is exactly how science works. hehe
 
2012-06-13 09:58:54 AM  
They tell us that
We lost our tails,
evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all,
just wind in sails

We're pinheads now
We are not whole
We're pinheads all
Jocko homo

Monkey men all
In business suit
Teachers and critics
All dance the poot

We go now,
God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
We're all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape,
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue
 
2012-06-13 10:05:06 AM  
I've always been curious, do other faiths have a problem with evolution? I mean, evolution doesn't necessarily jibe with Buddhist or Hindu or Zoroastrianism but I can't say that I've ever heard Hindus demand that schools teach the cosmic dance of Shiva as an alternative to the Big Bang theory. Of course, not living in India so I could be completely wrong, but a couple of google searches yeilded no results.

I suspect that the furor over evolution is a particularly American Christian phenomenon, though I wouldn't wager against some fundamentalist Muslims somewhere with the same viewpoint.
 
2012-06-13 10:05:27 AM  
The people who denounce and reject science will be the first ones in line for science if they get a disease.
 
2012-06-13 10:09:43 AM  

NeverDrunk23: The people who denounce and reject science will be the first ones in line for science if they get a disease.


Of course they will. They're either rich or uninsured and get treatment at the emergency room.
 
2012-06-13 10:17:33 AM  
The whole notion of a soul is a figment of human imagination.

The whole notion of imagination is a figment of human imagination, so there.
 
2012-06-13 10:20:41 AM  

erstwhileplanet: I've always been curious, do other faiths have a problem with evolution? I mean, evolution doesn't necessarily jibe with Buddhist or Hindu or Zoroastrianism but I can't say that I've ever heard Hindus demand that schools teach the cosmic dance of Shiva as an alternative to the Big Bang theory. Of course, not living in India so I could be completely wrong, but a couple of google searches yeilded no results.


FWIW, Thailand is primarily Buddhist, and as a high school biology teacher, I've never had an problems teaching evolution here. There doesn't seem to be any controversy about teaching it (I've never heard from parents or students saying it conflicts with their beliefs). Granted, I only teach at one school, so this is only a single data point. But I've never heard of anyone getting up in arms about evolution. They just seem to accept it as part of learning biology.

Then again, I've noticed that, even with the more talented students, people aren't very prone to making connections between different subjects or parts of life here, so there may be some kind of conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution at some philosophical level that I'm not aware, but it simply doesn't cross most people's minds to put them side by side for comparison. Of course, this is purely anecdotal based on my observation of students being completely flabbergasted when I point out a connection between something we are learning in biology and something they are learning in their chemistry or physics classes. It's like it never occurs to many of them that things they learn in different subjects can and often do connect to each other.

But they don't seem to be encouraged to think that way anyway, and more of their learning (especially in their Thai language classes; I teach in an English Program -- Thai students taking most core subjects in English, but some classes also in Thai, and the school also has many students not in the English Program) is wrote memorization for BS standardized tests and university entrance exams rather than trying to actually understand the material.

/I focus on them learning the concepts and ideas of biology rather than just memorizing lists of names of things
//so really the majority of their time in biology involves learning about or applying ideas of evolution, since it is so fundamental to biology
 
2012-06-13 10:21:32 AM  

bobsixpack: I was going to read this, but I got distracted and disturbed by Joseph Farah's mustache. He should shave it off before it crawls up his nose and eats his brain.


Not much danger of that, now is there?
 
2012-06-13 10:23:41 AM  

kid_icarus: Interesting. I can't help but notice that the author (Carl Gallups) has no scientific background at all.
Seems legit.


that just makes him all the more credible, scientists are just scammers who lie to protect each others federal grant money.

when you really think about it, science hasn't done anything good for humanity.
 
2012-06-13 10:25:04 AM  

brap: Ham was courageous.


Nah.

Ham was Cool. Fonzie-like cool.

Check him out, chillin' like a villain:

blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2012-06-13 10:32:33 AM  
That some are still not convinced of evolution is proof that we are merely and truly apes.
 
2012-06-13 11:10:58 AM  

randomjsa: And I as I read further...

There's something else here that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection favor the species that is most able to reproduce successfully. Whether that species is advanced enough to build communications satellites or of such limited ability that it operates like an insect means nothing. Assuming that evolution favors advanced intelligence is like assuming it favors large size or the ability to digest wood. Now being intelligent certainly does give you some advantages, rather huge ones in fact, but this author seems to think that the end all goal of evolution and natural selection is to produce human like levels of intelligence when its not.


While you are mostly right, one thing to take into consideration is that as the evolution moves forward, more complex organisms have the opportunity to come into existence. That doesn't mean less complex organisms cease to exist, an amoeba and humans have still been evolving for the same amount of time and are equally adapted to their respective environments. What is means is that some niches can[t be filled until a certain level of complexity is reached, and intelligent civilization ends up turning things on their head by able to create their own niches by changing the environment on a large scale.

So while evolution isn't a race to civilization, the possibility for it happening increases over time and once it happens the sapient specie can stick around for quite a while (or permanently if it successfully colonizes other star systems)
 
2012-06-13 11:36:32 AM  

Gwyrddu: randomjsa: And I as I read further...

There's something else here that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection favor the species that is most able to reproduce successfully. Whether that species is advanced enough to build communications satellites or of such limited ability that it operates like an insect means nothing. Assuming that evolution favors advanced intelligence is like assuming it favors large size or the ability to digest wood. Now being intelligent certainly does give you some advantages, rather huge ones in fact, but this author seems to think that the end all goal of evolution and natural selection is to produce human like levels of intelligence when its not.

While you are mostly right, one thing to take into consideration is that as the evolution moves forward, more complex organisms have the opportunity to come into existence. That doesn't mean less complex organisms cease to exist, an amoeba and humans have still been evolving for the same amount of time and are equally adapted to their respective environments. What is means is that some niches can[t be filled until a certain level of complexity is reached, and intelligent civilization ends up turning things on their head by able to create their own niches by changing the environment on a large scale.

So while evolution isn't a race to civilization, the possibility for it happening increases over time and once it happens the sapient specie can stick around for quite a while (or permanently if it successfully colonizes other star systems)


OK, that last claim is totally unfounded. We've been using 'civilization' as our strategy for a few thousand year and only have the one sample, yet somehow its some game changing thing that will last 'a long time'?
 
2012-06-13 11:47:00 AM  

Mr.Tangent: I ain't never seen a monkey give birth to a man.

I love that old chestnut, cracks me up every time.


i0.kym-cdn.com

An argument so stupid they named an award after it.
 
2012-06-13 11:55:38 AM  
What have I learned here?

If I get laid off I can write an anti-evolution book and make money from the all the science-fearing fundamentalists. I can throw in some specious statistics, and they will eat it up.
 
2012-06-13 11:56:27 AM  
Is it possible that theists like the guy in the article simply can't grasp the oceans of time that elapsed between abiogenesis and the multitude of species that have come and gone since?

To put this into perspective, let's look at approximately how many times lightening has struck the earth since life formed here.

There are roughly 100 lightning strikes on Earth every single second. That means that there are roughly 8,640,000 strikes per day.

Ignoring leap years that means that there would be 3,153,600 lightening strikes per year.

Single celled organisms have been dated back to approximately 3.8 billion years ago here on earth.

That means that since life formed here, lightening has struck roughly 11,983,680,000,000,000,000 times since then.

I bet all the money in the world that people who don't believe in evolution can not process a number that large. And I would propose that it is this inability to process numbers (and time) on such a large scale that has left them unable to accept reality itself...
 
2012-06-13 12:00:03 PM  

erstwhileplanet: I've always been curious, do other faiths have a problem with evolution? I mean, evolution doesn't necessarily jibe with Buddhist or Hindu or Zoroastrianism but I can't say that I've ever heard Hindus demand that schools teach the cosmic dance of Shiva as an alternative to the Big Bang theory. Of course, not living in India so I could be completely wrong, but a couple of google searches yeilded no results.

I suspect that the furor over evolution is a particularly American Christian phenomenon, though I wouldn't wager against some fundamentalist Muslims somewhere with the same viewpoint.


Catholics believe in evolution. Pope John Paul II said as much in a speech on October 23rd, 1996.

// Granted, that was a looooong time after evolution was proven but it is still evidence that real Christians don't need to stick their heads in the sand when science discovers something interesting...
 
2012-06-13 12:06:10 PM  

Archae hippy: We SHOULD be talking about the fact that Chuck Norris is predicting for a border invasion. derp


No, we should be ignoring that, too. He's a karateman who participated (I hesitate to say acted) in some movies and TV shows; his opinions are invalid.
 
2012-06-13 12:16:04 PM  

Ned Stark: OK, that last claim is totally unfounded. We've been using 'civilization' as our strategy for a few thousand year and only have the one sample, yet somehow its some game changing thing that will last 'a long time'?


The claim is obviously hypothetical, but there is plenty of reason to believe it is true. Humans have already adapted most of the planet to their needs and there becomes less and less from nature that could wipe our species out as time goes on. Once humans has colonized other star systems we will effectively become immune to global catastrophe and it would take an organized genocidal campaign by a more advanced species to wipe out the human race. The same arguments could be applied to any alien civilizations out there as well.
 
2012-06-13 12:19:47 PM  

Farker Soze: A two-year-old human child is infinitely smarter than any chimp on the planet, and the child's life represents the ability to literally change the future of the planet and history. Not so with the smartest of chimps

That's today. There were times when there was 3 or 4 different intelligent primate species on the planet at the same time. Homo sapiens shared Europe and lived side by side with intelligent tool and fire using Neanderthal only 30,000 years ago. What if they wiped us out? Would there be Thrag instead of Jesus?


I may be wrong here, and they may be citing different research (assuming either side is citing real research), but the "monkey rights" groups as people call them argue that adult higher primates and dolphins have similar spatial reasoning ability to that of 5 year old children, and as such there should be a degree of sovereignty afforded to these animals. That's not to say that they are equally "smart", just that there are a handful of mammals that are just as capable of observing a novel situation and coming up with a solution without trial and error as a kindergartener. Might not seem like much, but for quite a while in history this was considered the difference between man and beast (after we realized plenty of species used tools.)

Not going to dispute that our beefy frontal lobes have us at the top of the list for smartest creatures on Earth by a decent margin, but as more and more research is done we are able to see more and more behavior that we used to identify as uniquely human occurring in the animal kingdom, and we have to adjust our perception of how wide a gap there is accordingly.
 
2012-06-13 12:25:44 PM  

TFerWannaBe: fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily. Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

I was with you until you said "All science would offer is . . . " That's complete bullshiat. Science gives us tools we can use to improve our lives, reduce human suffering, make the world safer and expand our knowledge of the universe. Science gives us medicine, food that grows in adverse conditions, technology that allows family to communicate long distance, and lesbian porn. How can you claim that science can only offer the knowledge of a miserable life?

One could argue that science also gives us the means to cause suffering - but since religion often provides the reason for doing so, you aren't going to get much traction there. The truth is that science gives the human spirit the means to achieve its greatest dreams. Religion- at best - merely guides the dream.


If you're poor and afflicted with a serious disease..is Mr. Science going to come to you and offer free medical care? No? Because at least Mr. Religion will come and while he won't lift you out of poverty and cure your disease, he will tell you that you're loved, that you count and a better life waits for you.
 
2012-06-13 12:32:18 PM  

mamoru: Bigdogdaddy: There is no intelligent life on this planet. We prove that daily.

Uhhh... The mice would like to have a word with you.


Yes, but they paid for it.
 
2012-06-13 12:32:49 PM  

mamoru: fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily.

Such as? And before you drop that old canard "Why are we here?" please be ready to answer the counter questions "Why do think there has to be a reason?"and "Why do you think that is a question that science will never be able to answer?".

Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

And science is in a better position to actually make that person's life better. Scientific advances leading to medical advances lead to easier, cheaper, medical treatments that can (and many people believe should) be made available to all via social programs. Such social programs themselves are not necessarily science or religion dependent, but things like basic universal healthcare would be building off the fruits of science, not religion.

And, if science can be said to imply or inspire any overall messages about life, "you're going to live a miserable life and then die. Sorry" couldn't be further from the truth.

Science says "Hey, even you, poor miserable person, can learn to understand and appreciate the awesomeness of the Universe, because Science will not tell you that there are things you are not allowed to know or attempt to learn. Science itself cannot make your life automatically better, but it can say, 'hey, here are some tools. You now have the the means to do your best to make your life better. Best of luck to you.' And what will religion tell you? 'Hey there, it's OK to suffer and be miserable now, because things will be much better after you die. So, don't bother trying to better you ...


You're thinking at the macro level. I'm talking real life at the individual level. If you're a poor paraplegic with Parkison's in the slums of Paraguay, what is science going to do for you? What good is knowledge of the material world to this person who will likely never know anything but poverty and suffering? Religion on the other hand may give him purpose and hope, maybe even happiness.

In a perfect world with unlimited resources religion might have less appeal. But that's not happening in any forseeable future and because of that, religion will always have a place.
 
2012-06-13 01:10:57 PM  

eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?


He used the Holy Ambu Bag; God is a certified EMT.
 
2012-06-13 01:16:52 PM  

fozziewazzi: TFerWannaBe: fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily. Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

I was with you until you said "All science would offer is . . . " That's complete bullshiat. Science gives us tools we can use to improve our lives, reduce human suffering, make the world safer and expand our knowledge of the universe. Science gives us medicine, food that grows in adverse conditions, technology that allows family to communicate long distance, and lesbian porn. How can you claim that science can only offer the knowledge of a miserable life?

One could argue that science also gives us the means to cause suffering - but since religion often provides the reason for doing so, you aren't going to get much traction there. The truth is that science gives the human spirit the means to achieve its greatest dreams. Religion- at best - merely guides the dream.

If you're poor and afflicted with a serious disease..is Mr. Science going to come to you and offer free medical care? No? Because at least Mr. Religion will come and while he won't lift you out of poverty and cure your disease, he will tell you that you're loved, that you count and a better life waits for you.


And that's the problem. How can lying to someone ever be considered medicinal?
 
2012-06-13 01:17:29 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: "There is no 'supreme being' in heaven who reached down to create life on Earth or human beings. Nor is that being answering prayers. There is no soul. There is no everlasting life. Science tells us all of these things with complete clarity. God is imaginary."

Bullshiat. Scientists don't even pursue those lines of investigation.

Just once, I'd like to hear from a Creationist who actually understands science. But, if they did they probably wouldn't be Creationists.


Yeah, that was a quote from an atheist site. Even knowing Fark atheists, they probably weren't making it up.

/Stupid\asshat people adhere to any train of thought. The question is what the good people involved do, not what the dumbasses do.
 
2012-06-13 01:21:18 PM  

Stibium: There can be no argument. Macroevolution has been studied, observed, and repeated in the laboratory.


That's all well and good. But, the argument was about biblical literalists believing in evolution by natural selection.

You might have noticed that I didn't say 6,000 years is insufficient time for evolution by natural selection to occur. I said, quite specifically, that 6,000 years was insufficient time to produce changes "that would catch the notice of young earthers."

Do you really think the evolution of bacteria is something that would catch their notice? Hmmmmm?

The fact is that young earthers are likely to regard any change within Prokaryota as being negligible...even if the active genes of two examples are more dissimilar than those between, say, humans and chimpanzees. I know this to be true because I've actually heard young earthers make that specific argument.

So, yeah, didn't need your lecture. In fact, it was completely unresponsive to my post.
 
2012-06-13 01:21:58 PM  

Ringshadow: Forgive me if this is an illogical argument, however...

I always find it interesting when people who do not believe in evolution will own specific breeds of animals. Logically, the selective breeding of the ancestor of dogs has led to many, many breeds that look nothing like each other.

[retrieverman.files.wordpress.com image 640x473]

Chihuahua and a Great Dane. Yes, they're still the same species and they COULD still interbreed but dear god, would you want them to? Could they even do so without assistance? A male Great Dane would likely kill a female chihuahua and a male chihuahua would need a stepladder to get to a female Great Dane.
It could also be stated that some breeds of dogs, such as English Bulldogs, can't even naturally breed anymore. A genetic dead end.



The Chihuahua/Great Dane example is a very good one. Upthread, (2012-06-13 12:18:31 AM) mamoru noted that the concept of "species" is really a matter of convenience for us, rather than a "fact of nature." The Chihuahua/Great Dane example shows the "gray area" between "same species" and "different species."

As you note, a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are prevented from breeding by purely "mechanical" barriers of size, but they are "the same species" because it is possible for Chihuahua genes to get into the gene pool of Great Danes and vice versa indirectly (e.g. Chihuahua mates with beagle, offspring of beagle mates with Airedale, offspring of Airedale mates with Great Dane). If the "intermediate sized" dogs became extinct, Chihuahuas and Great Danes would instantly be separate species, without either of them changing one bit.

The selective breeding for traits we find desirable could be said to mirror what nature inflicts on animals, which eventually leads to a species split where animals can no longer successfully interbreed. We just haven't driven any animals quite that far yet.

/have we?


Yes, we have! Fat tailed sheep and domestic turkeys cannot reproduce with their wild relatives. (They can't reproduce at all without human assistance, and their wild relatives won't let us get close enough to assist.)

We have also done it several times with plants (bananas and breadfruit are my favorite examples, because they are delicious).

mamoru:

The simple solution to this (and to the "Mules don't reproduce, but are clearly alive" arguments) is that the cells of their bodies and your bodies do reproduce by mitotic division. Therefore the usual definition still applies. ;)



Yeah, I know this and you know this. I just wanted to see if he knew this. When people start talking about the boundary between "life" and "not life," my taxonomy-sense starts tingling. ;-)
 
2012-06-13 01:25:54 PM  
Science (the creation and testing of a hypothesis) is an unavoidable and innate human experience.

IMHO placing it in contrast to mythology is absurd. Likewise, replacing religion with science is also ridiculous.
 
2012-06-13 01:28:05 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: I like beer.


I like the way that you apparently weren't permabanned for threadjacking about two months ago, when you didn't take your meds and posted the same thing repeatedly for ten or so hours.

Been lying low, have we? Been posting under an alt?
 
2012-06-13 01:41:40 PM  

Corporate Self: Ishkur:
That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Then why have we found no life outside of Earth? Surely if its a natural undirected process, it would be everywhere in the Universe right?

If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


This one earned you the (un)coveted "Retarded Red" coloration.

Jim_Callahan: Corporate Self: If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?

You invented a way to detect small quantities of complex organic molecules from several light years away? Because the rest of us can barely manage to tell if there's a simple three-atom molecule on the moon without creating a giant explosion in the specific area we think exists.

Or are you getting this magical ability to search places outside Earth using your mutant power of teleportation? Because I hate to break it to you, but science doesn't have that either. All we've checked so far for life is a vanishingly small section of a very limited chemical range of an arbitrarily selected bit of Mars and an even smaller bit of the moon. If you want to make stupid assertions about how we've looked everywhere and haven't found anything you're going to have to wait another four or five centuries at minimum, right now we can't even get to most of the planets we know about, much less explore them in detail.


Like I said, "retarded red"

bobsixpack: I was going to read this, but I got distracted and disturbed by Joseph Farah's mustache. He should shave it off before it crawls up his nose and eats his brain.


It's too late for that...
 
2012-06-13 01:50:18 PM  

FloydA: Gwendolyn: I had a sixth grade teacher who told us evolution wasn't real because if it was monkeys would keep having babies. That made about as much sense as this guy.


wat

That doesn't even make sense in a nonsense kind of way. Did he think that monkeys don't reproduce? Where did he think they come from?


I think the idea was monkeys would be having human babies if evolution were true, therefore it must be false.

Teacher does not understand the theory.
 
2012-06-13 01:51:20 PM  

fozziewazzi: What good is knowledge of the material world to this person who will likely never know anything but poverty and suffering? Religion on the other hand may give him purpose and hope, maybe even happiness.


So you suggest religion is some sort of opiate for the masses?
Seriously, though, it sounds like you're advocating delusion as a method for dealing with problems. Frankly, if the person in your example realized that there wasn't some sort of celestial mandate that they be sick, and survival wasn't in "god's hands" then perhaps they'd fight harder to survive, or even advocate for better health care for others in similar situations. Putting your life in the hands of a fictional god and giving up because it brings a sense of peace is stupidity and self-harm.
 
2012-06-13 01:55:30 PM  

RedVentrue: FloydA: Gwendolyn: I had a sixth grade teacher who told us evolution wasn't real because if it was monkeys would keep having babies. That made about as much sense as this guy.


wat

That doesn't even make sense in a nonsense kind of way. Did he think that monkeys don't reproduce? Where did he think they come from?

I think the idea was monkeys would be having human babies if evolution were true, therefore it must be false.

Teacher does not understand the theory.


To put it mildly!
 
2012-06-13 02:02:39 PM  

Pharque-it: FloydA: wildsnowllama:

Viruses are not life because they can not reproduce on their own. They must hijack the systems of living organisms to reproduce.

My father could not reproduce on his own. He had to "hijack the systems" of my mother in order to produce me.

Which one of my parents would you say is not alive?

And your mother hi-jacked a couple of incomplete cells from your father. But they reproduce as a spieces. Thus are they both living. Both are needed.
The living cell does not need the virus to reproduce, but the virus need a cell, not another virus.


I would argue that though virus (viruses or virii?)and bacteria behave in very different ways, both are alive. Perhaps the virus had an altogether different beginning independant from bacteria.

What I'm trying to say is that you are comparing apples and oranges and concluding that oranges must be bannanas because they are unlike apples.
 
2012-06-13 02:23:42 PM  
where did black people come from?
 
2012-06-13 02:25:40 PM  

clowncar on fire: So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.


img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.


Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.


Confuses probabilisitic inference from priors with premises unjustified by priors. (Or of one's devotional relationship with the Ultimate Reality°, or perhaps other elements of Cannon's "Six Ways" framework. Whichever.)

Corporate Self: To me science's current answer that "a billion monkeys" gave way to the complex coding of life is much less believable than some unknown intelligent entity had a hand in it.


Probably because you've not studied enough math; particularly, the branch associated with computational complexity, formal languages, and automata theory. Difficulty with understanding exponential and logistic curves also seems pretty common.
 
2012-06-13 02:35:31 PM  

mamoru: Corporate Self: Deal in truth or go home.

I'll take the "educated guesses" based on extrapolations of observed phenomena and observed very well supported explanations of nature of science over the wild-ass evidence-free guesses that you propose.

You do not deal in truth at all. You deliberately distort how science even approaches the question of abiogenesis, making non sequitur "million monkeys" arguments and you provide no evidence or even logic for your own suggestion that some unknown, unobserved intelligent entity did it so science must be wrong. You present this as an argument from disbelief, and it is presumably based on faith.

Science isn't claiming truth. Science isn't claiming to be right. Science is positing and testing as well as it can explanations based on evidence. Science accepts an explanation as provisionally true if the current body of evidence supports it, it is testable, it has not been refuted, and it explains more than the previous explanation which it is replacing. Science does not hide these aspects of how it works. Science does not claim truth. And science is not dishonest in how it tries to explain the universe.

Accepting something as provisionally true based on evidence and extrapolation from known phenomena is not the same as the faith you are using to believe that $Unknown_Intelligence did it because I can't understand the complexity involved. You are being dishonest for even suggesting that the two are equivalent.

You want to deal in truth? Physician, heal thyself.


You're right science doesn't claim anything, but Scientologists like Sabyen91 claim to know everything.

I guess Sabyen91is God then.
 
2012-06-13 03:07:27 PM  

Mongo No.5: where did black people come from?


When a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they do a special kind of grown up dancing, and that makes a baby grow in the mommy's tummy.
 
2012-06-13 03:14:05 PM  

FloydA: Mongo No.5: where did black people come from?

When a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they do a special kind of grown up dancing, and that makes a baby babby grow in the mommy's tummy.


I updated your post using the parlance of our times...
 
2012-06-13 03:45:23 PM  

Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.


Faith and Belief are not the same as Trust

I hope I don't have to explain this further...
 
2012-06-13 03:54:37 PM  

IntertubeUser: When confronted with Hume's "Problem of Induction" (white v. black swans), science gracefully sidesteps the issue.


Philosophy of science, however, does not have to. Taking as an axiom that experience has a pattern (defined mathematically), something like Occam's Razor can be derived as a theorem; and something looking remarkably like the scientific method results as a pseudo-algorithmic expression of that theorem.

Science just deals with what happens next, implicitly dependent on the few axioms required.

It's possible to take refutation of any of the few axioms required, but those tend to leave one unable to tell crap from crawdads, unable to count to three, or other crippling philosophical limitations.

daveUSMC: Maybe I will have to revise some ideas that I have about my faith along the way, as new scientific discoveries come out.


How about mathematical discoveries? Do you allow those to impact your faith?

erstwhileplanet: I suspect that the furor over evolution is a particularly American Christian phenomenon, though I wouldn't wager against some fundamentalist Muslims somewhere with the same viewpoint.


Examples exist, yes.
 
2012-06-13 03:58:18 PM  

Perlin Noise: Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.

Faith and Belief are not the same as Trust

I hope I don't have to explain this further...


What do you mean by 'hope'? I'm confident you don't mean 'conviction'.

//although it would hard to say with any surety
 
2012-06-13 04:00:10 PM  
Christians who don't believe in Evolution do it for a simple reason, the idea they are related to black people in Africa and *gasp* an animal like an ape flies in the face of their racist superiority complex.
 
2012-06-13 04:03:26 PM  

abb3w: Confuses probabilisitic inference from priors with premises unjustified by priors.

Perlin Noise: Faith and Belief are not the same as Trust


...po-TAY-toh, po-TAH-toh....
 
2012-06-13 04:08:37 PM  

abb3w:

[Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example....cold
.


There is no such thing as cold. Only a lack of heat.
 
2012-06-13 04:16:21 PM  

abb3w: ...po-TAY-toh, po-TAH-toh....


hmmm, not sure I follow
 
2012-06-13 04:24:32 PM  

Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.


I've never understood the point of this little bon mot. What's the end game to this argument?
 
2012-06-13 04:27:43 PM  

Mongo No.5: where did black people come from?


Well, considering that all humans on earth are descended from black people, the better question would be "where did white people come from?"
 
2012-06-13 04:32:10 PM  

Nick the What: What do you mean by 'hope'? I'm confident you don't mean 'conviction'.


I guessed that in the future I may have to explain my statement. It was something I did not want to do. Therefore I recited a tiny prayer to Joe Pesci that he might somehow stop this event from coming to pass. I did this not because I lack an explanation, but because I would have to type a bunch of words that the person for which they were intended would ultimately not agree with anyway.

Instead, I find myself explaining my use of the word "hope". Although my prayer seems to have worked, I am left with the notion that Joe Pesci works in mysterious ways.

Also, what are you trying to say again?
 
2012-06-13 04:33:39 PM  

sno man: timujin: Ennuipoet: This thread is missing someone...someone important, it's an evolution thread so who is supposed to be here but isn't? I am sure it will come to me.

Don't do it, there's still the possibility of this being a rational, adult conversation.

There is an ignore button, used sparingly, will save you many brain cells.


Oh, I'm aware, and I've used it to good effect on a very, very select few. It's not the user, though, but rather that once that user intrudes the whole conversation gets taken in whatever direction they seem to want.
 
2012-06-13 04:36:01 PM  

Ed Grubermann: I've never understood the point of this little bon mot. What's the end game to this argument?


That's because it does not make any sense. You don't "believe" in a theory... that's just silly.
 
2012-06-13 04:40:58 PM  

abb3w: IntertubeUser: When confronted with Hume's "Problem of Induction" (white v. black swans), science gracefully sidesteps the issue.

Philosophy of science, however, does not have to. Taking as an axiom that experience has a pattern (defined mathematically), something like Occam's Razor can be derived as a theorem; and something looking remarkably like the scientific method results as a pseudo-algorithmic expression of that theorem.

Science just deals with what happens next, implicitly dependent on the few axioms required.

It's possible to take refutation of any of the few axioms required, but those tend to leave one unable to tell crap from crawdads, unable to count to three, or other crippling philosophical limitations.


But mathematics is analytic and is only capable of telling us things that are true by definition. A mathematical equation is like saying, "All bachelors are unmarried." On the other hand, science takes those "definitions," makes synthetic statements, and then tries to tell us about the world, akin to saying, "All bachelors are bald." That may or may not be true; the best that science can strive for is, "All bachelors that we have seen have/have not been bald."

And saying that "just deals with what happens next" contains presuppositions that run aground of the "Problem of Induction" because our ability to observe is limited and even the act of observation presupposes a myriad of other assumptions (Quine's Two Dogmas). Trying to elevate scientific statements to the level of math via the Verificationist Theory of Meaning proved impossible for Carnap and the Positivists.

The aim of science is (and should be) to give us information that hasn't been proven false, which is the best that we can hope for. Anything that tries to give you more than that is lying to you.
 
2012-06-13 04:53:03 PM  
You know how Word has underlines for spelling mistakes? Couldn't we invent a system that does the same for logical fallacies?

I guess in the mean time we could just use something like this:
http://markup.io/v/xfpb785kkggt
 
2012-06-13 05:57:28 PM  
Intelligent design folks need to think twice about what they're saying. Look for a moment at the utter stupidity that is the human race. Look at the absolutely crazy ass things we do. Look how totally farked up our world is. THIS is the best your god could do? Granted, he only had seven days, but still...
 
2012-06-13 06:27:19 PM  

Nick the What: There is no such thing as cold. Only a lack of heat.


More or less.

Perlin Noise: hmmm, not sure I follow


Same thing, said two different ways. You're probably more comprehensible.


IntertubeUser: But mathematics is analytic and is only capable of telling us things that are true by definition.


Or more precisely, are inferred as abstractly true in consequent of the starting axiomatic premises. EG: "2+3=5" isn't true because it's defined as true, but as a consquent of the other underlying axioms taken; and does not necessarily follow for systems where sufficiently bizarre alternate axioms hold.

But that's just a quibble.

IntertubeUser: That may or may not be true; the best that science can strive for is, "All bachelors that we have seen have/have not been bald."


Actually, no. The math also allows (given the data set, and aforementioned axiom) inferring whether or not the description based on "all bachelors are bald" is more probably correct than some alternate competing description basis.

IntertubeUser: And saying that "just deals with what happens next" contains presuppositions that run aground of the "Problem of Induction"


Sigh. It's specifically the mathematical resolution of that problem that I'm talking about.

IntertubeUser: because our ability to observe is limited


Which affects what data set is inferred from, but not the validity of inference as to which effective production is most probable.

IntertubeUser: even the act of observation presupposes a myriad of other assumptions (Quine's Two Dogmas).


There's a few; however, the premise that there is a pattern to experience (the general result of observation) packs them up. Also, some of the problems Quine presents are mathematically simple once you hit them with a hammer circa ω-ordinal size. Wikipedia also makes it look like he's complaining about the non-empirical nature of set theoretic mathematics, and possibly the incompleteness problem. The former just means that it's not a myriad assumptions, but a bit under a dozen involved (not counting optional extras only taken for notational efficiency); the latter looks to be a standard philosophical confusion between being unable to answer all questions with some particular question being unanswerable. Quine seems not entirely wrong about the holistic nature of science as a body of knowledge, though.

It's probably worth noting the theorem in question post-dates Quine.

IntertubeUser: The aim of science is (and should be) to give us information that hasn't been proven false, which is the best that we can hope for.


Science can do marginally better than "not proven false"; to wit, "most probably true". Popper's falsification is a sub-result of the theorem I mentioned, but not the general. Popper also noted the use in science of Simplicitly/Parsimony -- which is a more general result. Though perhaps correct about why it was used in science as anthropological practice, Popper appears to have been in error about the philosophical basis to justify it.
 
2012-06-13 07:03:26 PM  

WinoRhino: fozziewazzi: What good is knowledge of the material world to this person who will likely never know anything but poverty and suffering? Religion on the other hand may give him purpose and hope, maybe even happiness.

So you suggest religion is some sort of opiate for the masses?
Seriously, though, it sounds like you're advocating delusion as a method for dealing with problems. Frankly, if the person in your example realized that there wasn't some sort of celestial mandate that they be sick, and survival wasn't in "god's hands" then perhaps they'd fight harder to survive, or even advocate for better health care for others in similar situations. Putting your life in the hands of a fictional god and giving up because it brings a sense of peace is stupidity and self-harm.


Well, but you say that like fozzie's hypothetical slumdwelling paraplegic Parkinson's victim has the money, resources, education and backing to do what you suggest, even if he was made aware that God didn't really want him to be sick. Religion IS an "opiate for the masses" in situations where the masses are poor, powerless, disenfranchised, and unable to fight harder or advocate for others. Getting off your paralyzed ass and working for the common good is very difficult if your primary concern is where you're going to get enough food to make it through the day.

Religion isn't a single factor in making people give up. People often turn to religion as an alternative to giving up. You'll notice that people who genuinely work for change (and sometimes even overthrow governments for change) are usually led by a cadre of people who are: well-off, educated, integrated into the power structure, physically healthy, and often young. It's not a coincidence that revolutions often start among students, who THEN throw off their parent's religion in favor of some ideology that lets them ignore God's Will. The Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, numerous communist uprisings around the globe. successful military coups, etc., are never led by poor, desperate or ignorant people; they are always begun by people with the wherewithal to revolt. Then the poor, desperate religious people are swept up into their fervor.

Before then, or until then, all poor downtrodden people have is a hope of a better life after they die. It was true in Medieval Europe and it's true today. Telling that crippled old man in the slums of Brazil that his problems are medical and God didn't do that to him may well be true, and he may even acknowledge it; but it's not going to un-paralyze him and give him money and a better life today. People become very selfish when focused on their next meal, and telling that old man he should throw off the chains of his religion and work for a better tomorrow is only possible if he already has a better today.
 
2012-06-13 07:07:16 PM  
"If one wants to talk about REAL 'magic,' consider the evolutionist's proposition that all of life, all twenty million species of life and all their subsystems and sub-sub systems, originated (says the atheist) from an accidental, random, unpurposed, unplanned conglomeration of chemicals conjoining in a mystical, magical pool of mud, billions of years ago," said author Carl Gallups.

"This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!"


Carl Sagan's Cosmos, Episode 2 "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue", 5 October 1980 did, in fact, demonstrate this exact thing, creating organic molecules under laboratory conditions of a "young" Earth (young when it was actually young, not when fundies imagine it was young).

It is a reproduction (reproducibility is fundamental to verifying scientific theories) of the Miller-Urey experiment, conducted in 1952. That, again, produced that "magic mud" from a "random ... conglomeration of chemicals".

Why lie?

Well, because you're either completely uneducated on the subject and therefore not fit to speak on the topic, or human dogshiat, that's why.

/Carl Sagan also talks like Agent Smith.
 
2012-06-13 07:26:08 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: /Carl Sagan also talks like Agent Smith.


No doubt
 
2012-06-13 07:32:09 PM  

Perlin Noise: I recited a tiny prayer to Joe Pesci


Perlin Noise: Also, what are you trying to say again?


I don't know, you said it. How the fark should I know! You said it.

What am I here to amuse you?!

//was trying to be funny
///like a clown
 
2012-06-13 08:57:59 PM  

erstwhileplanet: I suspect that the furor over evolution is a particularly American Christian phenomenon, though I wouldn't wager against some fundamentalist Muslims somewhere with the same viewpoint.


There are many examples on Youtube of space videos or cosmic events, that for the first half would convince you, with great graphics and slick production esthetics, that you're watching a scientific documentary on astronomy, then they hit you with Koran verses and speeches that foretold those events.

So yes, Muslim creationists exist. They just don't have the power, profit or press as the Christian creationists do. At least on this side of the world.
 
2012-06-13 10:22:27 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: Intelligent design folks need to think twice about what they're saying. Look for a moment at the utter stupidity that is the human race. Look at the absolutely crazy ass things we do. Look how totally farked up our world is. THIS is the best your god could do? Granted, he only had seven days, but still...


The usual response is, that's all true but man is a sinner so of course they will do crazy things.
 
2012-06-13 11:11:47 PM  

Mr.Tangent: The Dog Ate My Homework: Intelligent design folks need to think twice about what they're saying. Look for a moment at the utter stupidity that is the human race. Look at the absolutely crazy ass things we do. Look how totally farked up our world is. THIS is the best your god could do? Granted, he only had seven days, but still...

The usual response is, that's all true but man is a sinner so of course they will do crazy things.


Maybe god wanted to know if mud could turn itself into something besides mud, given enough time.

We live in a petri dish.
 
2012-06-14 01:18:57 AM  

RedVentrue: Mr.Tangent: The Dog Ate My Homework: Intelligent design folks need to think twice about what they're saying. Look for a moment at the utter stupidity that is the human race. Look at the absolutely crazy ass things we do. Look how totally farked up our world is. THIS is the best your god could do? Granted, he only had seven days, but still...

The usual response is, that's all true but man is a sinner so of course they will do crazy things.

Maybe god wanted to know if mud could turn itself into something besides mud, given enough time.

We live in a petri dish.


I seem to remember an Arthur C. Clarke novel that suggested that God had created multiple universes, each of which had slightly different laws of physics, to see which ones would both give rise to intelligent life and end in some sort of harmony.

I'm not going to give the title of the book, however, because if I did I would spoil the ending.
 
2012-06-14 01:43:49 AM  

anfrind: RedVentrue: Mr.Tangent: The Dog Ate My Homework: Intelligent design folks need to think twice about what they're saying. Look for a moment at the utter stupidity that is the human race. Look at the absolutely crazy ass things we do. Look how totally farked up our world is. THIS is the best your god could do? Granted, he only had seven days, but still...

The usual response is, that's all true but man is a sinner so of course they will do crazy things.

Maybe god wanted to know if mud could turn itself into something besides mud, given enough time.

We live in a petri dish.

I seem to remember an Arthur C. Clarke novel that suggested that God had created multiple universes, each of which had slightly different laws of physics, to see which ones would both give rise to intelligent life and end in some sort of harmony.

I'm not going to give the title of the book, however, because if I did I would spoil the ending.


One of my favourite authors.
 
2012-06-14 07:50:30 AM  

Gwyrddu: Ned Stark: OK, that last claim is totally unfounded. We've been using 'civilization' as our strategy for a few thousand year and only have the one sample, yet somehow its some game changing thing that will last 'a long time'?

The claim is obviously hypothetical, but there is plenty of reason to believe it is true. Humans have already adapted most of the planet to their needs and there becomes less and less from nature that could wipe our species out as time goes on. Once humans has colonized other star systems we will effectively become immune to global catastrophe and it would take an organized genocidal campaign by a more advanced species to wipe out the human race. The same arguments could be applied to any alien civilizations out there as well.



Somebody doesn't have a sense of human feebleness and shortsightedness. Hubris and notions of entitlement such as this will probably be our kind's downfall. Even if it were true that we have or will shortly overcome natural threats (read: environmental disasters, novel viruses and bacteria, food shortages, et al.), I don't see much indication of our mentality and behavior evolving in a way that avert our own cosmic seppuku. Scratch that, bad analogy. Seppuku is a willful and honorable method of suicide.

I also detect an inability to consider large amounts of time and a readiness to embrace glib solutions, which - as has been demonstrated consistently throughout this thread - seems to be inherent to those over-reliant on a religious outlook.
 
2012-06-14 03:39:03 PM  

runcible spork: Somebody doesn't have a sense of human feebleness and shortsightedness. Hubris and notions of entitlement such as this will probably be our kind's downfall. Even if it were true that we have or will shortly overcome natural threats (read: environmental disasters, novel viruses and bacteria, food shortages, et al.), I don't see much indication of our mentality and behavior evolving in a way that avert our own cosmic seppuku. Scratch that, bad analogy. Seppuku is a willful and honorable method of suicide.

I also detect an inability to consider large amounts of time and a readiness to embrace glib solutions, which - as has been demonstrated consistently throughout this thread - seems to be inherent to those over-reliant on a religious outlook.


On the subject of novel viruses and apropos of nothing in the thread, spreading to other stars does seem to have the inherent small pox problem. It took us a long-ass time to populate this planet, and even then it's more a density problem than a volume problem. That said spreading to five or ten other planets would, even assuming we don't have an even numerical distribution, seriously reduce both local numbers and density, especially with current and evolving knowledge about resource exploitation telling us to distribute far and wide in smaller communities to quickly exploit many resources at once.

Which leads to small, sparse herds, each evolving their own mutations and immunology. The real problem is we wouldn't fundamentally change that much as a species, so normal animal barriers -- like simian-human transmission that kept SIV from making the leap to HIV for a long time -- wouldn't apply. A novel virus evolves in a community, that community develops an immunological response to it, but no other community has it. One guy goes off-world and bam, pandemic. Factoring travel times for even isolating a treatment from the mutated population, you're looking at serious problems on one planet, especially if it's a latent disease.
 
2012-06-15 12:41:53 PM  

mamoru: clowncar on fire: Evolution has thusly been validated as the subcribers to any other beliefs are idiots. You heard it here. You realize that "evolution" is only a theory at this point. Has a few holes in it but appears to cover most of the bases for now...

Uh, no. Evolution (the change in allele frequencies in a population over time) is an observed fact. It's very easy to observe. Watch a population generation by generation and see the frequencies change, as well as the effects of those changes.

The mechanisms by which it happens contain both observed facts (mutation, migration) and theories (Natural Selection, Artificial Selection, Genetic Drift, etc), and the theories are probably the best supported in ALL of science. Physicists probably have wet dreams about having an actual theory of the mechanisms of gravity as well supported as the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection.

Also, penalty for misusing the word "theory". In science it basically means "as close to whatever the actual truth is that we can get with the data currently available". A good equivalent would be "STRONGLY supported, never refuted despite all attacks, provisional truth" with the understanding that all "truth"s are subject to change with new evidence.

mamoru: clowncar on fire: So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.

Did you read the whole post? Because this question is answered in it.

Sabyen91: He knows. He is farking with you.

Shiat. I see. I'll stop wasting my time then.

Farkin' trolls. :(

Basically to summarize my summary, in science "theory" basically means "true far beyond any reasonable and even statistical doubt based on current information".


Dan the Schman: Actually, evolution (the progressive change of species over time) is a fact, the theory (that which explains an observed phenomena) is natural selection. And we know more about evolution and the mechanics behind it than we do of gravity. Seriously, in order to attempt to explain gravity, we came up with "gravitons", which are completely hypothetical and yet to be proven. We know something is there, because we can see the effects, but we still are struggling to explain it in a way that fits with everything else we know about physics.


mamoru: Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.

Or they could go on reasonable extrapolations of known and observed chemical phenomena, more and more of which that are related to abiogenesis hypotheses are being tested all the time.

Which is totally the same as faith.


Ed Grubermann: clowncar on fire: So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.

Well, that answers my question: idiot it is.


Corporate Self: Its, at best, an educated guess. To me science's current answer that "a billion monkeys" gave way to the complex coding of life is much less believable than some unknown intelligent entity had a hand in it.


Ishkur: Corporate Self: To me science's current answer that "a billion monkeys"

That's not science's current answer. You are arguing from a position of improbability. Science makes no such claim that abiogenesis happens by random chance. It is undirected, yes, but it still adheres to basic fundamental preferences and behaviors in bio-chemical logic.

Furthermore, the monkeys on typewriters writing Shakespeare parable is only supposed to be a philosophical demonstration of chaos theory (that anything infinite can accomplish anything finite, by virtue of it being infinite), not an actual proof for asserting incalculable odds (whereit be mathematical, physical or biological). It doesn't actually have anything to do with life or evolution.

So stop using it.


abb3w: clowncar on fire: So why bother calling it the "theory" of evolution then? Strongly supported? Yes. Proven fact? Maybe not so much.

[FloridaTag] Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
[FloridaTag] Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
[FloridaTag] Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.


Nick the What: Perlin Noise: Corporate Self: Since we don't have billions of years to wait for life to spontaneously generate in sterile conditions, I would say that believers in that theory need to go on faith.

Faith and Belief are not the same as Trust

I hope I don't have to explain this further...

What do you mean by 'hope'? I'm confident you don't mean 'conviction'.

//although it would hard to say with any surety


My favorite response to people who willfully ignorantly refuse to understand the word "theory" in science and insist on using the "evolution is just a theory" meme:

So, then, by your reasoning, this means that music hasn't been proven to actually exist?
 
Displayed 407 of 407 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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