University of Idaho affirms evolution
- Thread starter unclepercy
- Start date
interesting new theory over at the threadin needle 
:wink:
I'd like to propose a third alternative theory. I call it the theory of "Design by Unintelligent Hand," or "DUH" for short. The basic concept? The Creator is an utter dumbass.
Consider the evidence:
1. The dark. One of the big ideas behind Intelligent Design is that there's no way an eye could evolve. My contention? There's no way a Creator who wasn't a goddamn imbecile would create eyes that don't work half the time.
2. Toes. They're just dangling there, off the end of your feet, with a bunch of fragile little bones. Combine these with #1 above, and you've got a recipe for disaster. You think Jonathan Ive would have created something as stupid as toes?
3. Nonspecific urethritis. I can understand a Creator trying to enforce draconian anti-sex measures by punishing people who break them with oozing pustules and fiery pain when they urinate, because, hey, that's what Creators do. But random urinary tract infections? Just, y'know, out of the blue, not being able to take a piss without screaming? That's just stupid.
4. Gravity's acceleration. Stuff breaks when it falls at 32 ft/sec^2. A little gravity's good--you don't want your coffee to go flying off the desk, after all--but why's it got to be so heavy? And don't get me started on what happens when you drop a bowling ball on #2 up there. You think the Creator hasn't done that a time or two and thought to himself, "Good gravy, I'm a fool"?
4. Tiger cubs. They are almost unbearably cute--so cute that if you saw one, you'd want to take it home. But then it grows up and EATS YOU. Good thinkin', there, C!
5. Genetics and natural selection. Anybody who's ever smushed a generation of drosophila melanogaster except the ones born with red eyes and has then seen the next generation born with red eyes understands the principles behind heritable traits and the idea that selecting for those traits makes it more likely the next generation will have them. So we have a Creator who goes to the trouble of making this simple, effective system, and then ignores it completely to create a billion or so species out of thin air. The sharpest tool in the shed? I THINK NOT.
Obviously, this is a theory whose time has come. Please join me in demanding that DUH be taught alongside evolution and intelligent design in our nation's classrooms
:wink: I'd like to propose a third alternative theory. I call it the theory of "Design by Unintelligent Hand," or "DUH" for short. The basic concept? The Creator is an utter dumbass.
Consider the evidence:
1. The dark. One of the big ideas behind Intelligent Design is that there's no way an eye could evolve. My contention? There's no way a Creator who wasn't a goddamn imbecile would create eyes that don't work half the time.
2. Toes. They're just dangling there, off the end of your feet, with a bunch of fragile little bones. Combine these with #1 above, and you've got a recipe for disaster. You think Jonathan Ive would have created something as stupid as toes?
3. Nonspecific urethritis. I can understand a Creator trying to enforce draconian anti-sex measures by punishing people who break them with oozing pustules and fiery pain when they urinate, because, hey, that's what Creators do. But random urinary tract infections? Just, y'know, out of the blue, not being able to take a piss without screaming? That's just stupid.
4. Gravity's acceleration. Stuff breaks when it falls at 32 ft/sec^2. A little gravity's good--you don't want your coffee to go flying off the desk, after all--but why's it got to be so heavy? And don't get me started on what happens when you drop a bowling ball on #2 up there. You think the Creator hasn't done that a time or two and thought to himself, "Good gravy, I'm a fool"?
4. Tiger cubs. They are almost unbearably cute--so cute that if you saw one, you'd want to take it home. But then it grows up and EATS YOU. Good thinkin', there, C!
5. Genetics and natural selection. Anybody who's ever smushed a generation of drosophila melanogaster except the ones born with red eyes and has then seen the next generation born with red eyes understands the principles behind heritable traits and the idea that selecting for those traits makes it more likely the next generation will have them. So we have a Creator who goes to the trouble of making this simple, effective system, and then ignores it completely to create a billion or so species out of thin air. The sharpest tool in the shed? I THINK NOT.
Obviously, this is a theory whose time has come. Please join me in demanding that DUH be taught alongside evolution and intelligent design in our nation's classrooms
#juan said:
Yep. Lots of good company there though... :wink:
The damned have more fun, in my not very humble opinion.
Re: RE: University of Idaho a
As I noted earlier Rev, the Bible is my source. If you read the first book of the Bible, chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, you'll find a description on the creation of the heavens and earth by God.
Reverend Blair said:
As I noted earlier Rev, the Bible is my source. If you read the first book of the Bible, chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, you'll find a description on the creation of the heavens and earth by God.
Re: RE: University of Idaho a
The whole point, Andy is if you believe the heavens and earth were created by God, evolution becomes a non-issue, so the origin of life is all we are dealing with, no evolution. I also noted that I do believe in micro-evolution, where a given species adapts to changes in surroundings over time. This in no way points to the creation of new species through evolution.
Also, in the using the organic molecules theory, there is still the question on how do we go from those organic molecules to life as we know it? How do we account for the gap?
Andygal said:
The whole point, Andy is if you believe the heavens and earth were created by God, evolution becomes a non-issue, so the origin of life is all we are dealing with, no evolution. I also noted that I do believe in micro-evolution, where a given species adapts to changes in surroundings over time. This in no way points to the creation of new species through evolution.
Also, in the using the organic molecules theory, there is still the question on how do we go from those organic molecules to life as we know it? How do we account for the gap?
Dexter Sinister said:
Dexter, I need to get myself one of those GPS gadgets that gives a real location in latitude and longitude as you have displayed.
Again, your arguments above are well founded. In regards to your point as to why God would create creatures that are inferior to others, that is the whole point of having different creatures. Otherwise, God would have created soley one superior creature. One would naturally be stronger than the other. Events such as drastic climate change, comet or asteroid would result in survival of the absolute fittest.
I agree with you that although the bible describes divine creation, it is not solid proof that evolution never occured. However, for those of us with faith combined with the lack of real proof of how creatures came about, the bible will continue to be the source for many of us.
Re: RE: University of Idaho a
How about: we don't understand that yet. That's a perfectly legitimate scientific answer. Your position implicitly assumes we can never know so it's not worth trying to find out anything more about it. How does saying god did it explain anything useful or increase our understanding? It just avoids having to produce a real explanation. Forever. It's the ultimate answer for anything we don't understand, and the end of the investigation.
Nascar_James said:
How about: we don't understand that yet. That's a perfectly legitimate scientific answer. Your position implicitly assumes we can never know so it's not worth trying to find out anything more about it. How does saying god did it explain anything useful or increase our understanding? It just avoids having to produce a real explanation. Forever. It's the ultimate answer for anything we don't understand, and the end of the investigation.
Nascar_James wrote:
One small jump to go here. One of the properties of those organic molecules is that they can form "live", self-replicating, groups of cells that can evolve into higher beings. That wasn't so hard was it. If you want to say God produced the spark of life, I won't argue.
One small jump to go here. One of the properties of those organic molecules is that they can form "live", self-replicating, groups of cells that can evolve into higher beings. That wasn't so hard was it. If you want to say God produced the spark of life, I won't argue.
Reverend Blair said:
Precisely the point, no explanation is possible.
1. We are not sure about the "start of things" so each has his own "theory", eh?
2. Book of Genesis was written as a collection of "Pre-historic" stories to "explain" the beginning. Actually, the stories were probably oral tales (Myths if want) about how the ancients saw the world and how they explained its creation! Did God create the world? No one can prove or disprove any broad theories. Evolution, Big Bang, Adam and Eve are theories.
3. Explain God or the Supreme Being Theory. Its like trying to figure out PI to infinity? What is infinity? Is there a God or No God? If there is no God, then why I am being a good person if the afterlife is a myth?
What is the natural order of things and who decided the order?
4. Each culture on Earth has a creation story, most hacve a common thread about a single man and woman, did the children commit incest?
5. Do I have a soul?
Religion, science and curiosity, a hell of a combination.
Human and chimpanzee DNA sequences are 98-99% identical for nuclear DNA#juan said:
98.3% for non-coding and 99.5% for coding DNA
#juan said:
That's right juan...but it was Zeus, and not Yahweh that hurled a well aimed lightning bolt into that pot of primordial soup... :roll:
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm
There is a huge difference between creation myths and scientific theory Martin.
That would imply that agnostics and atheists are not good people, which simply isn't true.
There is no order, at least as you mean it. There are simply species that have adapted to a certain niche within an intricate web of life.
Most fictional stories have a main character and that character has a love interest. There is usually a conflict that drives the plot of the story, generally from an outside source. The main character and his love interest usually have fatal or near fatal flaws that they must overcome.
You can plot the books of the Bible on the same development graph that they made you plot short stories on in Grade 10. The short stories often had a clearer moral in them though.
There is no scientific reason to believe that you have a soul or that any part of you survives after death.
RE: University of Idaho a
Explain this Nascar:
New find on Island
Tiny Ancestors of Modern Humans May Have Lived in Indonesia Just 12,000 Years Ago
The controversial Flores site, first reported a year ago, has left paleontologists puzzling over how such ostensibly primitive beings -- with 25-cubic-inch brains similar in size to those of human ancestors 3 million years old -- could make sophisticated tools, master fire, and kill, butcher and cook small elephants with the skill of modern humans.
Click above links for articles.
Explain this Nascar:
New find on Island
Tiny Ancestors of Modern Humans May Have Lived in Indonesia Just 12,000 Years Ago
The controversial Flores site, first reported a year ago, has left paleontologists puzzling over how such ostensibly primitive beings -- with 25-cubic-inch brains similar in size to those of human ancestors 3 million years old -- could make sophisticated tools, master fire, and kill, butcher and cook small elephants with the skill of modern humans.
Click above links for articles.
"I believe that a man should be beholden to his neighbor without the reward of heaven, or the fear of hellfire."Reverend Blair said:
— "Hezekiah Jones" by The Perth County Conspiracy