BlueCollarJoe
aisebon
BlueCollarJoe
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.
Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.
Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.
Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.
Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.
Yeah! Burn that strawman, biatch!
But seriously, until you can prove there is a god: ID holds no water.
Evolution has a mountain of proof behind it, and it's quite a difficult concept to get your head around- but there's proof all animals come from one universal ancestor. We all share at least 40% of our DNA with all animals and plants, we all have many of the same organelles, our cells are quite similar and expression of genes is done in the exact same way in all eukaryotes. The fact that we have many redundant and counter-productive features (we eat and breathe through the same hole, we waste a lot of energy and nutrients on stupid things, we have many parts of our body we just don't need and we age in a rather clunky and stupid way) is evidence that, if there was a creator, he wasn't the wisest of the elders.
Where in my ID comment did I ever mention God? Or any deity? Not once. Clinging to the fallacy that ID always means God is disproving your very comments.
Except you didn't go the extra step to find out that under pure ID you need a deity. The universe has existed for a finite amount of time, if aliens seeded the planet, those aliens would have needed a seeder, and so on and so on till the beginning of time, you either have a god, or abiogenesis via chemicals coming together as per the RNA world hypothesis (or some like process) of abiogenesis. You fundamentally need a god for ID to be accurate, therein lies your fallacy.
BlueCollarJoe
You're putting words in my mouth, and other peoples as well.
No, we're taking the logical extension of the "theory" or "hypothesis" you posit, (although you can't provide a single testable falsifiable hypothesis) and saying it fails because it mandates a god, go far enough back, you've got a maximum of 13.7 billion years, originally either a god did it, or it came about naturally, for ID to be accurate, it'd really have to be a god.
BlueCollarJoe
Burn your own strawman. And I am well aware Evolution doesn't cover monkeys screwing goats and creating squirrels. It was meant to make a point about the claim itself, nothing more, nothing less.
... "making a point about the claim itself"??? Excuse me, you stated something that would UTTERLY invalidate evolution, that's not making a point, that's presenting a total straw man. That's showing fundamental ignorance for the theory. That's not simply "making a point about the claim", it's demonstrably wrong and not even remotely resembling ANYTHING under evolutionary theory. Not a tiny bit, I mean, honestly, it is closer to ID than evolution.
BlueCollarJoe
And are you saying that, according to evolution, it is not possible for a monkey to screw a goat and both it and the goat having a mutation in their genetic code that would allow for this to happen?
That's exactly what we're saying, it's absolutely impossible for a goat and a monkey to mate, and have an offspring that would result in a squirrel. And by impossible I mean it in the sense most scientists do, something that's so unlikely it'd invalidate the theory. It's impossible for Adriana Lima to appear right in front of you naked, although quantumly it's possible, but only given an infinite amount of time. Likewise, it's impossible for such a mating to result in a squirrel, however given an infinite amount of time, you might get a few solutions by which it is possible. That said, the chances are so remote that we should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER see it unless evolution is wrong, just like the chances are so remote Adriana Lima would appear in front of you naked that we should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER see it unless our basic conceptions of quantum theory are wrong.
200
200
200
