"evolutionists have not succeeded in showing how nonliving matter can jump the many hurdles required to form living cells" Needless to say my monitor was dripping with delicious yogurt. I was floored and pissed, and now I write.
I was initially ready to yell at the screen hoping someone over at the belief.net camp would hear me and say "oh, well I guess we were wrong. Time to pack up and move on to more productive avenues." and the site would be forever shut down, but I realized that I wasn't really sure if there was any science to back me up, and, as always, there was.
The process is called abiogenesis, which means "Spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter" The above chart (taken from this link) is a simplified version of the dichotomy between how creationists and scientists see abiogenesis. Clearly someone is missing out. My money is on the creationist croud, as they've proven time and time again that they are either misinformed or worse under informed. You'd think that if you're going to take on evolution (I must stress abiogenesis is not evolution) you might learn something about it first, although I believe that if any magical thinker were to actually understand the process, they might just blow a gasket and rethink the bull shit they subscribe to...not in this life.
This is especially true in the Kitzmiller Vs. Dover trials. If you want to learn about that waste of tax dollars head on over to PBS NOVA and watch the doc "Judgment Day:Intelligent Design On Trial" or read up on it at Wiki.
It's basically a case closed event on the whole teaching Intelligent design in a classroom. Fuck knows what they wanted to teach, I think it was basically a veil so that they could infiltrate science classes and discredit evolution. Fortunately the universe being "Intelligently designed" doesn't really lend itself well to a lesson plan, so the trial came up Darwin on that one.
The point is that because someone may not understand how abiogenesis works, doesn't mean that it doesn't. For ages scientists thought the earth was flat now we understand that it's not. Science is an enormous learning curve and in order to keep heading along that curve we have to ask the questions first. Religion would have us be content in knowing that god makes everything work in mysterious ways, and that he made us and only us in his image.
If that was how things worked I'd throw myself off the roof of a skyscraper right into the path of a Mack truck. I couldn't imagine a world where we never asked questions about the universe, and I don't want to imagine a universe where we're alone. What would keep us going? We would probably die off out of sheer boredom.
So it seems that other intelligent life is incompatible with scripture and religious doctrine. That is seriously retarded. Why would god create an unimaginably enormous universe, then make it finite, then fill it with billions upon billions of star filled galaxies, surround those stars with supposedly lifeless planets, then on the sixth day picks a planet at random and plops a dude down on it?
I bet the Christian god is made fun of by all of the other deities. "Hey Jehovah, why's your universe so empty? I bet you rushed and made it in like a week" Kinda like that delinquent in biology class who always sat at the back of the room and slept.
If creation were an exam, God would've flunked it. Perhaps this is one of those rare times when the church amends their ridiculous doctrine and includes, oh I don't know, the rest of the universe! At least recognize it's there and then give god credit for for making it so empty and worthless, but that'd be questioning his fallibility and we can't have any of those pesky questions now can we.
In conclusion the universe is more then likely teeming with life and you'd have to be an ignorant schmuck fundie to think otherwise.
Oh and Belief.net sucks.
-Beaker
No comments:
Post a Comment