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»



406 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 406 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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