In a desperate attempt to fill the blog, I decided to copy something from my facebook notes. At this time, I'd like to establish that this is my personal belief and not necessarily that of any other contributors. But (because I have nothing better to do) I have decided to post this anyway.
Someone explain this to me.
According to the History Channel...
Billions of years ago there was star dust...this eventually gathered into masses of rock which started to crash into each other. Somehow, planets get formed (because crashing rocks into little bits somehow creates a planet). Now, things get really fucking hot on this planet right...like WAAAY over the boiling point of water...yet SOMEHOW water is found on Earth in the liquid form! So from here, down DEEP DEEP in the oceans (which came from stardust, mind you) things are EVEN HOTTER...so hot that elements somehow create amino acids (the building block of life). So from here these amino acids gather up together and form this tiny organism. After billions of more years, this tiny organism SOMEHOW evolves into you and me...HUMANS.So basically the origin of life according to the History Channel is that star dust (which just HAPPENED to be there).
WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY SMOKING?? (And where can I get some?)
Are you really fucking telling me that I'm the same thing as a fucking star? I'm exactly the same as our Sun? I'm nothing more than a living and breathing piece of galactic dust? Get real...
Rant over.
So basically to summarize, I am against the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, and the fact that Earth existed for over BILLIONS of years. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. I'm a little skeptical over Intelligent Design myself, but it makes much more sense to me. And until I find something that makes more sense, that is my personal belief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
i kno that this is totally pointless... but here it goes
first of all, evolution is not 'just a theory,' it makes testable predictions. it might be worthy to note that there is atomic theory, genetic theory, and germ theory, but no one is quesstioning them. evolution states that all organisms are descended from one organism, or from several that appeared on our planet at some time. this is backed by 1. dna evidence (all organisms share the exact same method of genetic encoding, as well since all primates have 24 chromosomes, except humans. but this is explained by two chromosomes combining, which there is proof of. 2. transitional fossils: if land animals evolved from sea animals, there must exist animals that share qualities of both. and there is an extensive fossil record of such animals.
ID is a negative argument (if evolution isnt true, then this must be true) it makes no testable predictions, and is purely belief. no science backs it up, and in fact much science seems to discredit it.
and to date, i havent heard anyone mention what the specific holes in the theory of evolution are.
here's a hole: where the fuck is the missing link? there's NO fossil evidence of there ever being such organisms/animals.
And as far as Intelligent Design goes, yes you must believe that there is a God, but after that belief it does makes sense. I mean you can't have nothing from nothing. Unless the star dust was always there. And even then, how the hell do you make something living out of something nonliving? that's like turning chocolate pudding into a koala bear. Simply CANNOT be done.
But, on the reverse arguement, how do you make Man out of dust, as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible? Unless God is allpowerful and has the ability to create the Universe...
again, you use a negative argument,
because we havent found 'the missing link' yet doesnt mean it doesnt exist. and what are you talking about, theres lots of transitional fossils. amphibians are a pretty good argument in themselves for evolution. and what do you mean by missing link? the link between land and sea animals? its been discovered. the link between man and apes? also found. links between reptiles and birds? archyoptris or however its spelled, that famous fossil? thats a transitional form. theres lots of them.
but believing in something that can't be proven is not scientific. religion simply cannot be mixed with science, the values of each are conflicting. religion prides those who have strong beliefs. science supports those who do not let their beliefs interfere with their studies. in summary, religion is not what you should turn to for a scientific explanation.
and as far as making life from dust, i agree, so far science cannot conceive of a way to do it. but lets look at the other side: how did all this non-living matter come into existence? its just as confusing, although life throws in a curve ball by starting as live but transforming into non-living matter.
Ok maybe the fossils thing was just a bad arguement, but you can't deny that we haven't found "the first organism". You know, the one that was formed by those magic amino acids. where the hell is this? if it does exist, my guess is that it decomposed a VERY long time ago. so there will never be proof it existed.
But i guess it's like what you said once before: why look for the origin of Man when we are threatened with the extinction of the very same species?
perhaps that'd be another good topic for a blog entry...
scientists have discovered meteors that contain water and bacteria
ok...now explain how this life got there and how this relates to earth.
as far as im concerned, this life couldnt have possibly made it to earth for a few reasons
1) upon entry through the atmosphere, it gets REALLY hot...which could kill the life instantly
2) if was REALLY hot on earth at that period (according to the History Channel) so how could it possibly survive if it did make it to land? Cuz I haven't seen a single animal that has EVER survived past 212 degrees F.
but i am open to new things...
cats, the first thing that would have been called life was not an organism at all, but a self-replicating molecule, most likely a predecessor of RNA. fossils will never be found of it, but just because you can't hold it in your hand doesn't mean theres no proof. experiments have been done that simulated conditions on early earth, where they successfully got very small molecules like nitrogen gas and carbon dioxide to combine and form more complex molecules. they're not amino acids or self-replicating molecules, but if those small organic molecules could form it wouldn't be impossible to carry on to larger ones. it might be an unlikely chance, but all chemical reactions are are atoms hitting each other at just the right angle with enough energy so they stick. how fast a reaction happens depends on how likely they are to hit the right way. give it enough time (and enough free energy, provided by all the heat on early earth), and something very unlikely could feasibly happen. multicellular life only happened in the last billion years - that gives three and a half billion years of slow progress to that point, plenty of time for reactions to fail and fail and fail and finally succeed. so yes, given the right conditions and enough time, it would be theoretically possible to turn chocolate pudding into a koala bear. yes, duder, you are exactly the same as a fucking star, a living breathing piece of galactic dust and nothing more.
kyle's point in the first post about no one questioning atomic theory or the theory of gravity is very relevant. a scientific theory is something that has been tested thoroughly and has, for all intents and purposes, been proven true. the word "theory" is used precisely because of science's underlying acknowledgment that new evidence could come up at any time to change or refute the current model. unlike religion, science does not do dogmatic beliefs.
there is such a vast amount of chemical and archaeological evidence for the events of evolution that it is hard for me to believe anyone (besides the people who think the moon landing was faked) can disagree with it. my understanding of intelligent design was that god put the right things in the right place at the right time and just sort of helped guide things along. while not a scientific belief, i think this is a reasonable belief to have - it fills in the gaps in the evidence. denying that the earth is old, that evolution happened, insisting that genesis be taken literally, is not something that an educated person in 2008 can do.
not to bash you guys or be a snob, but what bugs me about this whole issue is how few of the people debating it actually know anything about it. for intelligent design, the explanation pretty much ends at "god did it," but to argue against, or for, evolution, you really do need to find out what the theory actually proposes and what the evidence is that's available. there are people, on both sides, who are informed - the people who get on CNN for 30 seconds, and then have their points summarized into an easily digestible form for the average viewer (which is pretty simplified - the average newspaper in the US is written at a 5th grade reading level). most people's knowledge consists of something they heard someone say about an article they read of someone summarizing someone else. it's playing the telephone game - no real information gets across after all that processing. if you're going to argue seriously about something, you have a responsibility to go out and get the facts, not spew hearsay and speculation.
oh man...trying to find a hole in that one is VERY hard...thanks A LOT for posting that Becky.
but here's why i still can't believe evolution:
as you said, scientists have made successful simulations. but does that necessarily mean that it HAPPENED? no not really.
and here's my other issue: you mean to tell me that billions of failures somehow turned an inanimate piece of dust into a living and breathing organism? i know you basically said "yeah...exactly", but you have to admit that that completely contradicts EVERYTHING anyone ever learned regarding science. but then again, one of the things the Walrus endorses is learning for yourself, not from school.
also, i still don't believe that pudding could possibly turn into koala bear under ANY circumstance, but hey maybe i'm just crazy.
btw, i do admit that my ideas are more logic than science, so if the above is easily contradicted by scientific evidence, please feel free to discuss further
anyway, thanks for that...i really needed something to think about today.
and also, CNN can kiss my hairy ass. if a person wants any REAL information, that is not the place to look for it. i would sooner look for news on the Weather Channel...
the simulations - no, of course it doesn't mean that it did happen, but it does mean that it's not impossible.
the failed reactions - i didn't mean that the failures caused the dust to turn into life. but if you have the random motion of the molecules they're going to hit into each other over and over again, and one time out of those billions of collisions, it could be just right. i don't think this contradicts what we've learned about science. then you hit bigger and bigger molecules together, and eventually you happen to get something that can self-replicate. the lipid bilayer, the cell membrane (which can form spontaneously) was a big step forward for this because it basically enclosed all the reactants together, which increased the chances they'd collide and therefore the chances they'd collide in just the right way, and things were able to progress a lot faster.
the pudding and the koala - let's just say there would be a LOT of intermediates.
and you're definitely right, the guys on CNN know things, but it's impossible for them to transmit anything there. to learn you have to look up what they actually say, not what someone tells you they say.
you are quite welcome for the discussion, possessor of the pilose posterior. kyle let me in on your dirty secret of commenting under different names so it seems like there's more than two of you reading this thing :)
haha...well now you got me stumped...bravo! lol
umm fyi i comment under the same name...just so happens that i changed my name from cats to duder...lmao. i havent seen cats for a while, so it was only fitting to quote one of my favorite movies...
and as far as your point on CNN, that's the whole reason why i still can't agree with you on this topic...i have to see the evidence (of the experiments and stuff...since i cant exactly witness the creation of life on Earth)and i cant just take someone's word on it (but i guess that contradicts this whole blog right? damn im in deep shit now...)
Post a Comment