Evolution
- Started
- Last post
- 85 Responses
- mikotondria30
Sorry, whip, is all you're going to do in this thread post that biologists don't have a complete understanding of how life began, and then just assert that therefore everything about evolution is false ?
Or just allude to the fact that you don't believe in evolution and use the fact that neither you nor us has the facts of biogenesis and imply a false equivalence based on that ?I'm almost interested to know.
- ha, seriouslymonospaced
- yes.whhipp
- haha, touche.mikotondria3
- ETM0
- mathinc0
I've never understood the 'there's no way life was created by chance' argument. If you take all of time as represented by the Empire State building, the amount of time we've been here could be represented as a postage stamp in comparison. Earth, obviously, has the right conditions to support life. Why is it so hard to believe that time + right conditions = organisms that evolve and become ever more complex over that time.
If they'd never seen a car before then they'd deem an Audi A8 as being a creation of a higher power too. Or as whipp subtly frames it, 'outside influencers.'
The older I get the more I have a distaste for religion and the people who believe this crap. Why is it so important to them to believe that the earth was created FOR humankind? That the age of the earth is roughly the same as the age of human existence? Because they need to believe that earth was created just for us.. gods special little creation. I actually find great pleasure and comfort to believe that we're just the miracle of chance, time and biology and not some mystical omni-present being.
- aaux0
This is why the bible thumpers have to ingrain that religion early and try to get it in schools. No adult would possibly believe such nonsense if they hadn't been brought up with it.
- aaux0
- monospaced0
Fuck it. whhipp wants some "scientific evidence" pointing toward how life originated. Before I start to explain, it's important to understand what science is and is not (not talking to those of you who understand the "method"). First, science is not a dogma and does not proclaim truths without proving them; science is a process, a tool for discovery and a process of questioning everything. Right now, science doesn't have "the" answer to how life originated, but it does have HEAPS of evidence pointing toward one, so much so it's silly to discount it. That being said, here's how it works, basically.
All living this are made of organic compounds, which contain the basic element, carbon. Carbon is important because it links together other elements to form complex molecules (water, etc), including amino acids. In DNA, the nucleotide sequence codes for the building of amino acids. Amino acids are important for life because they are the building blocks of protein molecules that make up ALL living organisms.
Then take in the timeframe and the literal "primordial ooze" that covered the planet for billions of years. Then take in all the conditions on this planet and you can see how the majority of all scientists and biologists everywhere pretty much agree that carbon-based life was a direct result of molecules forming and interacting and eventually reproducing (DNA coding). The rest is...history. Done.
- And don't even ask for citations and data. It's in every biology textbook in existence.monospaced
- Don't feel bad if you have to look up the big words. You're not a biologist or anthropologist, neither am I.monospaced
- Here's the very tip of the iceberg of evidence, in condensed form. http://en.wikipedia.…monospaced
- just a tiny bit more of evidence, it's only laughable that you would claim that science has none
http://en.wikipedia.…monospaced - http://en.wikipedia.…monospaced
- mikotondria30
He's going to ignore all of that in the specific, and again just ask for any 'evidence' for what you 'claim', and possibly a flourishing, 'ha', of self-congratulation that he's dismissed the millions of man-hours of research and peer-review of the scientific community with a single wave of his magic intellect. Can't answer my nonsensical question, can you ? he'll triumphantly assert.
No, no we can't. It wasn't a real question.
As Christopher Hitchens so wonderfully put it to Shawn Hannity - 'You give me the awful impression - and I hate to have to say it - of someone who hasn't ready any of the arguments against your position, ever."
- BrokenHD0
@Whhipp
http://www.wired.com/wiredscienc…
Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
By Brandon KeimEmail AuthorMay 13, 2009"A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory..."
- Wow. Now, if that isn't as awe-inspring as anything holy, I don't know what ismonospaced
- formed0
I had a discussion with someone about this...if we teach creationism, then we surely must teach Scientology's beliefs too, right? So aliens, anyone?
- they renamed it 'intelligent design' and are trying to keep it separate from religion, it's hilariousmonospaced
- I almost miss discipler and his bullshit ID promotionaaux
- fredddddd0
I want someone to propose a new theory and push it.
Have those religious people fight that!
- BrokenHD0
This is a quote from the comments of the article i posted above (written by Ralph Damiani), I found it eloquent on the subject and thought I'd share it...
---
As an agnostic, I find it intriguing, to say the least, how some people's Faith remains unmoved by the progression of science. They may have driven home in their fossile fueled cars and accessed this page from their wireless internet connections in their multicore laptops, perhaps not unlike Moses would have done if he lived to date. Yet, heaven forbids a few billion years in which we were not the center of the universe (apparently, we are now).
Faith does not need to object Reason if you're sensible enough to accept the physical reality and the nature of our existence as evolving questions to which there will always be a number of new answers, sometimes replacing outdated ones. But also, there will always be new mysteries to which the role of a God can ever be present, as many religious scientists, no doubt, will agree. Einstein never did.
It takes but a moment to rephrase and redirect one's Faith in order to accomodate the new facts that surface, and will continue to do so, as we become knowledgeable of things previously unknown or uncertain in our history and the history of life. Gone is the mud and sparkling winds, enters DNA and evolution, but is the actual recipe so important? Why so much resistence?
If I were to believe in God in the traditional sense, I would hardly see the need to do so in the role of a hermit bedouin stranded in medieval times. Yes, they had little choice in the realm of satellites, eletron microscopes and carbon dating, so they never had much of a reason to question their nightstand literature, busy witch hunters as they were.
But where we stand today, I wonder how this very same mindset can still exist! One can only hope to hear "So yes, there may not have been an actual Adam and Eve, but that doesn't diminish the metaphorical importance of Eden, as we approach the power to synthetize life ourselves" and instead there are those ready to swear by all saints the amount of days it takes to create the universe?
It's really difficult to make a strong argument against the theory of biological evolution when you're ready to regard the Bible as a historical account of everything there is, written by God through men. In the realms of unlikeliness, at least one of those theories is nearing conclusion. Well, at least for those not ready to dismiss it a liberal conspiracy (that would be highly amusing though).
To any extent, good science doesn't -NEED- to render the Bible useless. Quite the contrary. It's actually ironic how one the most timeless and flexible aspects of the Bible, one that would render it permanently relevant for mankind, which is the moral applicability of its paraboles, is lost to readers without an ounce of imagination.
Instead of re-interpreting pertinent lessons written thousands of years ago and translate them into our contemporary lives, they are, sadly, more concerned about propagating a doctrines. And this is where science really outshines religion in my humble opinion: Flawed as it may be, (and mainstream science if full of them) it encourages you to seek your own conclusions, and by using your God given brain, no less, you can actually prove others wrong.
- ukit20
Evolution at work:
- omg0
When God spoke to the Jews, they told them that us Goyums (gentiles/ non-jews) are meant to serve them. They will inherit the Earth. Which makes sense because they own everything. Does the Torah speaks the truth?! Is it true that Jesus is a false prophet and we've yet to find the true messiah? Since Jesus was a Jew, the whole world still bows down to serve the Jew. Or do you actually believe that dinosaurs exist?
- utopian0
whhipp, please keep your moronic nonsensical flatulence in the political thread.
- TheBlueOne0
Put two scientists in a room who disagree about the mechanisms of evolution and watch as they compare evidence empirically until one yields to the other who has a better conception of how the universe works. It might take a decade, but eventually they go out and have a beer.
Put two exponents of different religions in the same room who disagree how their particular god created the earth. They call each other blasphemers, exhort their followers to harm/kill the others or treat them as somehow unclean and less then human if they don't yield to the obvious 'truth'.
Science > Religion
- GeorgesII0
> scientist here (with PHD n shit)<
We're still evolving, my proof
---------- thread over -----------
