Support NeoGAF

[Angry Fork]

Yeah. The 'people who believe different things to me are ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously' line is one of those really scary ones.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm against me but I'm not sure. Anyway anyone who is willfully ignorant of fact (ie that evolution is real) shouldn't be taken seriously for sure.

If they believe God was here before the big bang, or that there is a God etc. then that's fine even though I disagree. If they believe something because science hasn't explained it yet then whatever that's their prerogative, but anyone who thinks anything in the bible is fact should not be taken seriously.

 

[ckohler]

I don't call people who are ignorant of evolution outright "idiots". Yes, they are ignorant on the topic of evolution however that ignorance does not automatically make them a complete idiot.

Take your doctor. I'm willing to bet your family doctor is a pretty smart person. He/she made it through medical school, knows shit-tons more about anatomy than I certainly ever will. However, if you ask them how much memory their computer has or what file-system it's running, there's a damn good chance they have no idea. Your doctor is probably a smart person but he/she could still be completely ignorant of computers. Does that make them an idiot? Of course not.

However, if my doctor stridently refused to believe computers worked using binary... then yes... I would have to call him out as an idiot.

We need to be careful to not just call all people idiots when they don't side on the side of Evolution when they simply are on the fence and haven't been duly informed. Only when someone takes a stance against a known and proven fact like evolution and isn't willing to took at the evidence should we have the confidence and clearance to call them for what they are... close-minded idiots.

Dawkins is pretty harsh here on Perry for not being informed about the truth of evolution however I think he's right to do so because it shows a lack of judgement in someone (an elected official) who we as a society should raise to a higher standard.

 

[Septimius]

"Evolution is a fact"

Yes and no.

The part of the theory that states that evolution causes species to change over time and biodiversity to increase as evolutionary paths branch is definitely true. We've already been able to observe this phenomena within species with short lifespans (such as bacteria and insects) and through controlled breeding. This is a truly proven fact.

However, the other part of the theory that states that all biodiversity today evolved from single celled organisms from aeons ago is entirely unproven at this point. Honestly, I don't buy it myself. The theory just doesn't hold up when you observe life from an anatomical level.

For example, In the stomach, we have glands that produce enzymes, glands that produce acid and glands that produce mucus. The enzymes don't work without the acid and the acid would eat through our stomachs and kill us if it weren't for the mucus. Remembering that evolution is a very slow process and all three glands couldn't possibly have formed all at the same time, explain to me how exactly the stomach would have had to evolve into existence from nothing. As far as I can tell, it's an all or nothing situation. And that's only one example. There are plenty

As a man of science, I say bring on a third theory into debate.

These types of arguments hurt my head so bad. Putting aside a discussion about the way our stomachs work, and how it may have been evolved into what it is, which was covered earlier, an argument like this is nothing but an argument to bait people who don't know what you're talking about into believing that what you're talking about makes sense and that you have a valid argument. A layman probably wouldn't know how many glands there are in the stomach, and not how they work. From there, it is unfair to start your argument by backing it up with something most people don't even know. Are there more glads, are there actually those three? Do they all need each other?

Ok, so the glands need each other the way they are today. Does that mean they were like this since we got stomachs? No, because we're talking about evolution, and there's not one generation that suddenly just gets stomachs.

Those things aside, let's isolate the argument that those three glands cannot form at the same time. That's not even true. Evolution is based on a bunch of tiny mutations that are more competitive than the previous. You also say that "the enzymes don't work without the acid and the acid would eat through our stomachs and kill us if it weren't for the mucus" - and you know what? You're right. We KNOW that a lot of people have died from overproducing acid, and you can bet anything that there have been mutations where the stomach was completely fucked up. It wouldn't have enzymes, or maybe mucus, or maybe acid, and that creature died. That's how evolution work. Out of all the mutations and permutations of 'starting to evolve a stomach', 99% of all stomach mutations died because they were dysfunctional, while it only takes one mutation getting them all right, at the same time, to get the foundations of the stomachs we have today.

Then you say that it's hard to believe that our stomachs "evolved into existence from nothing". That's just painful. No biologist would claim they did.

"As far as I can tell, it's an all or nothing situation." So we see that you can't really tell - it's not an all or nothing situation. Or, actually, even agreeing that this one is actually correct, I've still showed how it wouldn't be a problem, even if it were an all or nothing situation, because evolution is about countless failures, and if it needed to get all the glands at once (which I am saying for the sake of argument) - countless failures means that one got it right, since we're alive today with the stomachs we have. This is the complexity that evolution explains that is covered in what Dawkins said in OP.

It's good for you that you have found yourself a little examined position in which you've found a place for God in your life, but I'm sad to say that they are not thoughts that should be uttered on a forum if you wish to keep the integrity of those thoughts. I'm OK with you needing to believe this is true, but then you'll have to keep it to yourself, because it isn't true, and you'll be told that if you try to get affirmation on a forum like this. But then your cognitive biases are likely to kick in and you'll probably tell yourself I'm stupid and wrong long before considering the implication that you haven't understood evolution, and you don't have an argument wherein evolution and God can coexist.

 

[Stridone]

Yeah. The 'people who believe different things to me are ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously' line is one of those really scary ones.

Except it isn't about different beliefs but about one side ignoring hard facts in favour of unsubstantiated beliefs. The scary part is having these people decide the education of our children and governing our countries.

 

[CornBurrito]

Yeah. The 'people who believe different things to me are ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously' line is one of those really scary ones.

Are you really able to say with a straight face that someone like 140.85 who says "why would I believe in evolution? It isn't in the bible." isn't being willfully ignorant?

So to live a life of faith is to be ignorant and stupid. We're like...sub-human in way compared to such enlightend athiests, correct?

You don't need to be an atheist to accept evolution.

And rejecting evolution and ignoring the evidence in favor of it simply because it isn't mentioned in the Bible is ignorance.

 

[ruttyboy]

Again:

Evolution does not disprove God nor does it verify how life got here.

At no point has anyone said it does disprove God! It does however verify how life arrived at the point it is at now, to deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence is absurd.

 

[JGS]

At no point has anyone said it does disprove God! It does however verify how life arrived at the point it is at now, to deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence is absurd.

Then what the heck are you arguing about?

EDIT: I'm trying to figure out where you got that I said anything about anything evolutionary execpt that ID was still possible with it- something Dawkins clearly disagrees with a few times in the video.

 

[Septimius]

Then what the heck are you arguing about?

That taking the word of the bible over the amount of evidence for evolution is ridiculous, not the belief in God.

 

[Kurdel]

Evolution does not disprove God nor does it verify how life got here. .

If he's going off the giraffe video, he sucks at it. It;'s just that you find it easier to accept than you do God existing

No it doesn't but it also points to millions of years of biological development prior to our sorry species appearing and claiming we are the reason this world exists.

It's also much easier to believe in evolution than in any religion, because it is logical and proven. There have been thousands of religions and creation mythologies since the dawn of civilization, the one held today are no different than any other. Especially if we consider the hundreds of thousands of years homo sapiens roamed the earth before organised civilization.

Evolution does not disprove God or a deity, but renders the idea much more improbable. It leaves a cold and careless creator that made life, that then developped randomly and was nearly wiped ou many times. Any idea of a personal God depicted in the abrahamic religions becomes not only impossible (due to the timeline), but ridiculous. Creating billions of years worth of existance for 6000 years of existance of a single species on a planet that has seen the extinction of billions of species. That is one incredible backstory for a world that will be destroyed when he sees fit...

And if a politician is religious, it should not affect his decision making. If he is too dumb to understand evolution, he has not place in office.

 

[ruttyboy]

Then what the heck are you arguing about?

EDIT: I'm trying to figure out where you got that I said anything about anything evolutionary execpt that ID was still possible with it- something Dawkins clearly disagrees with a few times in the video.

You didn't, that's the point, but this thread did and that's what we were talking about!

 

[JGS]

That taking the word of the bible over the amount of evidence for evolution is ridiculous, not the belief in God.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It has to do with creation vs. no creation.
How I come up with how we were created is irrelevant to the point that Dawkins tries to prove that creation didn't happen.

Creation happening has nothing to do with how we think it happened.

You didn't, that's the point, but this thread did and that's what we were talking about!

I was replying to a post that questions ID and involves Dawkins. So if that comment derailed the thread, then apologies.

 

[besada]

Having said that, it seems that people are increasingly adopting the label 'atheist' and attaching all manner of baggage to it (love of Dawkins*, hatred of religion, left-leaning etc..) and I'd prefer it if it simply meant 'I have no belief in supernatural deities'.

This is true. All it means is you don't believe in gods. I've known atheists who believe all sorts of other claptrap, from ghosts to pyramid-building aliens, and atheists who have every sort of moral code, from Satanists to pacifists. Militant, hesitant, apathetic, sympathetic, you name it.

When I was younger, I was an OP on Dalnet's #atheism channel, and I got a great education on how variable atheists can be in their beliefs, but these days it seems like orthodoxy has come to town as atheists try to organize politically, which is a shame.

 

[Air]

this video

Yeah that lecture is REALLY good, and any fellow theist who doesn't subscribe to the theory of evolution should watch it. I think its very good.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm against me but I'm not sure. Anyway anyone who is willfully ignorant of fact (ie that evolution is real) shouldn't be taken seriously for sure.

If they believe God was here before the big bang, or that there is a God etc. then that's fine even though I disagree. If they believe something because science hasn't explained it yet then whatever that's their prerogative, but anyone who thinks anything in the bible is fact should not be taken seriously.

The problem with this stance is that the bible does contain facts, at least pertaining to history. I linked a few people to a something awful thread containing those facts, dunno if I can find it at work though.There's a mix of a lot of types of things in it.

Now, if you mean that it is the unadulterated word of God, than I'd say you have a point. I don't mean to sound abrasive, but if you hold logic and reason as high as you're saying, than you should be able to agree that the bible itself does contain facts. Maybe not hardcore scientific data, but more in line with historical facts (the rise and fall of empires and things of that nature.

 

[Septimius]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It has to do with creation vs. no creation.
How I come up with how we were created is irrelevant to the point that Dawkins tries to prove that creation didn't happen.

Creation happening has nothing to do with how we think it happened.
I was replying to a post that questions ID and involves Dawkins. So if that comment derailed the thread, then apologies.

Isn't that the question of biogenesis? If that's what you're refering to, then it's a bit different of a subject matter than evolution. If we're talking about intelligent design being the basis of evolution, then we're just trying to hard to let two theories live side by side. I have no problem discussing what it would imply if someone omnipotent sparked life and evolution happened, but I do find it to be an absurd starting point to say that someone omnipotent actually created some really awesome things, but then we evolved from there.

 

[ruttyboy]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It has to do with creation vs. no creation.
How I come up with how we were created is irrelevant to the point that Dawkins tries to prove that creation didn't happen.

Creation happening has nothing to do with how we think it happened.

Double speak?

It boils down to this. Ask yourself, do you believe in evolution? If not, in the face of the mountains of evidence and millions of educated people who do agree with it because they have actually looked into it properly, why not?

a) If it's because you don't understand it properly, read one of the many great books on the subject, hell, ask here, I and many other I'm sure would be glad to help you.

b) If it's because you've been told by an authority figure that it's not true but haven't actually investigated it using credible scientific sources, go to a).

 

[Kermit The Dog]

Double speak?

It boils down to this. Ask yourself, do you believe in evolution? If not, in the face of the mountains of evidence and millions of educated people who do agree with it because they have actually looked into it properly, why not?

a) If it's because you don't understand it properly, read one of the many great books on the subject, hell, ask here, I and many other I'm sure would be glad to help you.

b) If it's because you've been told by an authority figure that it's not true but haven't actually investigated it using credible scientific sources, go to a).

c. He's intentionally ignorant of it because any research would confirm his deepest fears. He's fearful because he's been led to believe that a God-less existence is a tragic one.

 

[Angry Fork]

The problem with this stance is that the bible does contain facts, at least pertaining to history. I linked a few people to a something awful thread containing those facts, dunno if I can find it at work though.There's a mix of a lot of types of things in it.

Now, if you mean that it is the unadulterated word of God, than I'd say you have a point. I don't mean to sound abrasive, but if you hold logic and reason as high as you're saying, than you should be able to agree that the bible itself does contain facts. Maybe not hardcore scientific data, but more in line with historical facts (the rise and fall of empires and things of that nature.

Yea I should've been more specific my bad, I meant more along the lines of adam and eve, noah's ark, etc. stuff like that.

 

[scosher]

I honestly don't see a problem with the theory of "intelligent design" per se. One can certainly accept the theory of evolution by natural selection and believe in the existence of a higher power. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The real hang-up, as I see it, is the stringent Christian belief that God is infallible. Instead, if you adopt the notion that God is fallible, that he does make mistakes, that the world is essentially just his petri dish and he tinkers around with all species as he pleases, not always making the best genetic mutations, and that he then lets natural selection guide the course of life on Earth, then who's to say there is no higher power?

Extrapolate that even further and if Genesis Chapter 1 was never written or was even more allegorical than it already is, perhaps even Christians would accept the theory of evolution. The only reason they contest it (besides being ignorant and uneducated), and not against say the theory of gravity, is cause evolution directly contradicts the Bible. And to them, the Bible is truth.

 

[Septimius]

The problem with this stance is that the bible does contain facts, at least pertaining to history. I linked a few people to a something awful thread containing those facts, dunno if I can find it at work though.There's a mix of a lot of types of things in it.

Now, if you mean that it is the unadulterated word of God, than I'd say you have a point. I don't mean to sound abrasive, but if you hold logic and reason as high as you're saying, than you should be able to agree that the bible itself does contain facts. Maybe not hardcore scientific data, but more in line with historical facts (the rise and fall of empires and things of that nature.

Even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day.

 

[CornBurrito]

I honestly don't see a problem with the theory of "intelligent design" per se. One can certainly accept the theory of evolution by natural selection and believe in the existence of a higher power. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The problem is it isn't a theory in the scientific sense. People often confuse the very different meanings of the word theory (common speech vs scientific meanings).

 

[ruttyboy]

Even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day.

I think more to the point, why would you use a history textbook to learn science?

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Yeah. The 'people who believe different things to me are ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously' line is one of those really scary ones.

People with influence who elect to believe their own unsubstantiated view of the world over scientific peer reviewed research scares me more than anything. One could argue that it's the greatest threat to the planet.

 

[VanMardigan]

If they believe something because science hasn't explained it yet then whatever that's their prerogative, but anyone who thinks anything in the bible is fact should not be taken seriously.

Yeah, ok buddy. You're the radical now.

 

[Angry Fork]

Yeah, ok buddy. You're the radical now.

Yea I should've been more specific my bad, I meant more along the lines of adam and eve, noah's ark, etc. stuff like that.

.

Regardless of whether the bible has 'some' facts though it shouldn't be used as a substitute to actual history textbooks.

 

[Air]

Even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day.

Personally, I don't think its anything like you paint it, but that's fine. I was just addressing the generic statement that he or she made, because statements like that don't really encourage rationality.

 

[VanMardigan]

.

Regardless of whether the bible has 'some' facts though it shouldn't be used as a substitute to actual history textbooks.

I'm going to at least partially agree in that I (as a Christian) don't think that the Bible is a science textbook or a history textbook. I don't think it claims to be, though obviously interpretations from my fellow Christians vary wildly.

 

[btrboyev]

It's perfectly simple

Evolution - studied - tested - evidence shows it's more than a theory. Natural Selection is real.

Creationism - cannot be studied - cannot be tested - cannot be proved.

Dawkins is right.

 

[Septimius]

Personally, I don't think its anything like you paint it, but that's fine. I was just addressing the generic statement that he or she made, because statements like that don't really encourage rationality.

It doesn't make the point any less worth thinking about. If you take the fact that there are things that are correct in the bible as any sort of sign that more things might be correct, then it's just like the broken watch. If you're just arguing that there are some things that are correct, then you are correct. Like for an example, some guy sent letters to the Corinthians.

 

[Air]

.

Regardless of whether the bible has 'some' facts though it shouldn't be used as a substitute to actual history textbooks.

No I think it can. The goal of history for us is to learn about the past. There are events in the bible that can used as good sources for history. Am I saying the entirety of the bible? No, but it gives us a good idea of traditions, rituals, places and other pertinent information that historians would want.

It doesn't make the point any less worth thinking about. If you take the fact that there are things that are correct in the bible as any sort of sign that more things might be correct, then it's just like the broken watch. If you're just arguing that there are some things that are correct, then you are correct. Like for an example, some guy sent letters to the Corinthians.

Like I said, I don't really think its that simple. I was simply telling him that the book has valid historical use. Is there flowery language? Yeah, but in all of that, a historian can learn so much. So I think as a historical document it has a ton of useful information.

 

[VanMardigan]

If you take the fact that there are things that are correct in the bible as any sort of sign that more things might be correct, then it's just like the broken watch.

No, it's absolutely not like a broken watch at all. A broken watch is right twice a day by coincidence.

 

[Korey]

No I think it can. The goal of history for us is to learn about the past. There are events in the bible that can used as good sources for history. Am I saying the entirety of the bible? No, but it gives us a good idea of traditions, rituals, places and other pertinent information that historians would want.

In a sociology or mythology class yes, in a science class no.

 

[Air]

In a sociology or mythology class yes, in a science class no.

I never said it should be taught in a science class. I was telling him it has historical value, not scientific.

 

[DarthWoo]

I never said it should be taught in a science class.

Rick Perry, on the other hand, and back to the subject of this thread, is.

 

[Septimius]

No, it's absolutely not like a broken watch at all. A broken watch is right twice a day by coincidence.

I see where you're going, but I have to point out that it is actually right twice a day because of the opposite of a coincidence.

The problem with "well, fact a was right, and there's a fact b, but we cannot test fact b, but since a was right, I'm gonna go with good faith and believe b for now" is that, this is not just fact a and b. Since a huge portion of the things in the bible is fiction, and not actually written down at the time it was said (how the bible was written by a handful of people and everything you need to research this on your own you can find with this great primer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70SYwkoH_yc), believing fact t because fact r was right, is nothing but all our combined cognitive biases coming together to cloud us from seeing the fact that fact a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, s were wrong.

The fact then that there are some parts of the bible that are factual becomes a moot point, just like the watch. If you look at your watch once, and check it to another watch, and see that they're right, only then to assume that you watch is always right, then you can be wearing a broken watch, and you simply don't question the fact that it's always 3:30.

 

[Air]

Rick Perry, on the other hand, and back to the subject of this thread, is.

I've already addressed that subject. I was addressing angry fork's statement about the facts of the bible, and to show him that his statement shouldn't have been so general.

A couple of other posters replied to my comments and I addressed them.

 

[Septimius]

I never said it should be taught in a science class. I was telling him it has historical value, not scientific.

Even its historical value is under huge pressure when there are so many things in the book that are plain wrong. There is nothing that gives us any reason to even bother stating the the bible has merit as a historical book, because it would be like choosing to listen to someone that just rambles, over someone that actually knows what they're talking about, just because the rambling man predicted it would rain on Thursday, when in fact he says it'll always rain on Thursday.

 

[Aaron]

No I think it can. The goal of history for us is to learn about the past. There are events in the bible that can used as good sources for history. Am I saying the entirety of the bible? No, but it gives us a good idea of traditions, rituals, places and other pertinent information that historians would want.

The bible isn't a historical document. It's not even accurate to the time it seeks to depict. It's the very same with the accepted concept of the medieval ages. What we think those times were is actually mostly a fiction created in the much later Victorian era. Not to say that Jesus didn't exist and the events it depicts didn't happen in some form, at least when talking about the new testament, but it's such a distorted image from what we now know about those times that it's as good as teaching the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Mechazawa]

So where was Perry going with this:

that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.”

Just a "Texas is christian strong hurr" type of comment? Evolution may not have been stressed as much as it should have, but I sure don't remember any creationism in (high) school.

 

[Count Dookkake]

c. He's intentionally ignorant of it because any research would confirm his deepest fears. He's fearful because he's been led to believe that a God-less existence is a tragic one.

This one is my favorite.

 

[Air]

Even its historical value is under huge pressure when there are so many things in the book that are plain wrong. There is nothing that gives us any reason to even bother stating the the bible has merit as a historical book, because it would be like choosing to listen to someone that just rambles, over someone that actually knows what they're talking about, just because the rambling man predicted it would rain on Thursday, when in fact he says it'll always rain on Thursday.

Not really. As a historian, one can analyze a slew of things. I gave examples above, relating to culture, religion (obviously), war and so on. Remember the book is also a mixture of history, religion, poetry and so on. I really think you're painting it too simple. Take any history of ancient civilization class, and you're gonna read parts about the bible (in conjunction with other texts) to paint a picture of what it was like.

The other posters are right though, as this is now starting to go off topic. If you still would like to talk about this, feel free to pm me.

The bible isn't a historical document. It's not even accurate to the time it seeks to depict. It's the very same with the accepted concept of the medieval ages. What we think those times were is actually mostly a fiction created in the much later Victorian era. Not to say that Jesus didn't exist and the events it depicts didn't happen in some form, at least when talking about the new testament, but it's such a distorted image from what we now know about those times that it's as good as teaching the sun revolves around the earth.

I don't really agree with that (the distorted image from the truth). I see where you are coming from, but I don't think its as bad as you say, especially coming from a history of ancient civilization class.

But again, I think I'll stop posting about this now since its detracting away from the topic.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

;p nm, too off topic.

 

[bengraven]

Anyone who pronounces their beliefs as absolute truth are considered arrogant, obnoxious assholes.

Which explains why there's such a backlash against Dawkins...and all religion as well.

 

[Dilly]

Can't imagine getting taught Creationism in class.

I'd seriously start to rage.

 

[Septimius]

Not really. As a historian, one can analyze a slew of things. I gave examples above, relating to culture, religion (obviously), war and so on. Remember the book is also a mixture of history, religion, poetry and so on. I really think you're painting it too simple. Take any history of ancient civilization class, and you're gonna read parts about the bible (in conjunction with other texts) to paint a picture of what it was like.

The other posters are right though, as this is now starting to go off topic. If you still would like to talk about this, feel free to pm me.

Now it seems like you're just taking this to a point that you can still defend. Are you surprised that I'll read parts of a historical document pertaining to one of the biggest religions in the world if I study something that relates to that?

There's also a HUGE difference between saying that the bible depicts history (ie things that were already history) in an accurate way, and that the bible depicts the history when it was written. Because the latter is impossible to refute, because of course something is historically relevant when you're studying the time it is from, but saying you can use the bible to tell you what happened before the bible is still silly, and you're still gone nowhere with this argument.

So yes, you are still correct, but I see no reason why it was so important to go this far to show, when the point is still that it is completely irrelevant to anything pertaining to this thread - so much so that you've realised it yourself.

 

[Angry Fork]

Anyone who pronounces their beliefs as absolute truth are considered arrogant, obnoxious assholes.

Which explains why there's such a backlash against Dawkins...and all religion as well.

Dawkins talks fact though, it's not belief. Otherwise I'm an arrogant obnoxious asshole because I think the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[WillyFive]

;p nm, too off topic.

It was a well written post though.

 

[Air]

Now it seems like you're just taking this to a point that you can still defend. Are you surprised that I'll read parts of a historical document pertaining to one of the biggest religions in the world if I study something that relates to that?

There's also a HUGE difference between saying that the bible depicts history (ie things that were already history) in an accurate way, and that the bible depicts the history when it was written. Because the latter is impossible to refute, because of course something is historically relevant when you're studying the time it is from, but saying you can use the bible to tell you what happened before the bible is still silly, and you're still gone nowhere with this argument.

So yes, you are still correct, but I see no reason why it was so important to go this far to show, when the point is still that it is completely irrelevant to anything pertaining to this thread - so much so that you've realised it yourself.

I never said it was that important to get this far off track. I never even wanted to get this far off track, but other posters kept addressing what I was saying. I'm not even arguing with you lol, you're the one who addressed me first. All I said is that I think you're painting this too simply. I didn't take it further than that.

The only point I wanted to make was to angry fork about generalizing. My intention was not to go off topic.

 

[Niks]

;p nm, too off topic.

Why did you edit?
I think it was good.

 

[Velti]

Mmmm... I LOVE the smell of bigotry in the morning! Hot damn, when did this become Fark?

Here's my urination in the ocean: The existence of evolution as a process is obvious. It allows life to persist in ever changing situations, and pisses off farmers trying to save their crop from fungal attacks. But at present, it doesn't adequately answer the question of biogenesis. Considering the time spans, it's impossible to observe and more difficult to prove. And yes, I know about Miller-Urey, and I don't find that adequate. I am le skeptic.

On a different note, the Biblical creation story is said to be a poem. I'm not inclined to care how exactly life came about, I just think God had a hand in it. (Cue the closing of your ears.)

I have a BS in Horticulture with a science focus, which means someday soon I'll probably be manipulating corn genes in the devil's office. (Monsanto) For myself, I consider the love and study of science, particularly biology, to be a form of worship. I wonder, is that just like nails on a chalkboard to any of you? Hey, maybe instead of transforming plant cells with bacteria or a gene gun, I'll just try the laying of hands and prayer to make it into perfect corn. Because that's the sort of thing I'd do, right?

Right?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Mmmm... I LOVE the smell of bigotry in the morning! Hot damn, when did this become Fark?

Here's my urination in the ocean: The existence of evolution as a process is obvious. It allows life to persist in ever changing situations, and pisses off farmers trying to save their crop from fungal attacks. But at present, it doesn't adequately answer the question of biogenesis. Considering the time spans, it's impossible to observe and more difficult to prove. And yes, I know about Miller-Urey, and I don't find that adequate. I am le skeptic.

On a different note, the Biblical creation story is said to be a poem. I'm not inclined to care how exactly life came about, I just think God had a hand in it. (Cue the closing of your ears.)

I have a BS in Horticulture with a science focus, which means someday soon I'll probably be manipulating corn genes in the devil's office. (Monsanto) For myself, I consider the love and study of science, particularly biology, to be a form of worship. I wonder, is that just like nails on a chalkboard to any of you? Hey, maybe instead of transforming plant cells with bacteria or a gene gun, I'll just try the laying of hands and prayer to make it into perfect corn. Because that's the sort of thing I'd do, right?

Right?

It doesn't do that because that's not what evolution is about.