Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 13, 2014

Renowned naturalist David Attenborough, who in the past has been reluctant to engage in public controversies, said he has lost patience with the "ignorance of creationists, polluters, and climate change deniers." He told Daily Beast, "If somebody says to me I believe every word of the Bible is true, you can't argue against that degree of irrationality ... there is actually a way of looking at the natural world and seeing the evidence and it's all there. And what's more it's the same evidence whether it's in Australia or Northern Europe or wherever. It's all the same -- it all produces the same answer and you can all see the evidence -- if you reject that then there's nothing I can say." Attenborough and his fellow naturalists have been demonstrating the science behind evolution and the fossils that show the development of animal species for decades, and yet recent years have seen an uptick in the number of Americans who believe God put humans directly on earth.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

moder8

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Attenborough also said he's grown sick of America's attitude to climate change. "I think it's very sad that people won't accept evidence for what it says -- it's extraordinary that one of the wealthiest, materially advanced societies in the world can support irrational myths in that way," he said. "That they should do it privately is up to them but since what they do effects that whole world it's pretty serious that they should not accept that humanity has been responsible for these changes that are absolutely evident to everyone else."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Attenborough hits the nail on the head. If a person is determined to reject all the evidence, there is nothing more that can be said.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-12 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Sir David is getting grouchy in his dotage.

"To simply say that you must accept unquestioningly what you learned at your mother's knee is not the act of an intelligent person,"

I would agree with that. An intelligent person might spend decades studying those ancient texts, however, and come up with different conclusions than an atheist would.

And as religion is not science, some people don't need it or the ancient texts to have a belief in God, which sorts I have always admired for trusting what they see and their intuition, even if I needed more than that myself.

And I love science, which in many case confirms the old texts rather than contradicts them. One problem is, of course, that what the old texts say is not what some modern theists believe or what a lot of atheists who listen to some modern theists are arguing against.

For example, see this post:

www.drudge.com

Here is an article by an atheist quoting other atheists which is a good read for anyone seriously interested in the subject.

"Ultimately, the problem with militant neo-atheism is that it represents a profound category error. Explaining religion - or, indeed, the human experience - in scientific terms is futile.

"It would be as bizarre as to launch a scientific investigation into the truth of Anna Karenina or love," de Botton says.

"It's a symptom of the misplaced confidence of science . . . It's a kind of category error. It's a fatally wrong question and the more you ask it, the more you come up with bizarre and odd answers."

www.newstatesman.com

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-12 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're full of it Corky. If the Bible is the true and literal word of God, launching a scientific investigation into the truth of the Bible should not consistently demonstrate how factually wrong the Bible is. By analogizing research into the the Bible to research into a work of fiction such as Anna Karenina, believers such as yourself tacitly acknowledge the absurdity of looking for literal truth in the Bible.

#5 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-12 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 10

[...] de Botton is a well-known atheist writer, as I said. [...]

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-12 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"yet recent years have seen an uptick in the number of Americans who believe God put humans directly on earth. One suggested explanation, has been the surge of unchecked disinformation available online.'

Posted by moder8

It's also because the oil industry has decided that their best chance to maintain their endless greed is to create doubt in science. If science says their product is killing the environment, they have to attack science itself.

They've successfully convinced masses of morons that science is a liberal conspiracy. Therefore anything science says about global warming, or the creation of life, should be doubted.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-02-12 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

"It would be as bizarre as to launch a scientific investigation into the truth of Anna Karenina or love," de Botton says.

"It's a symptom of the misplaced confidence of science . . . It's a kind of category error. It's a fatally wrong question and the more you ask it, the more you come up with bizarre and odd answers."

So, since no one had a reasoned retort, let me ask....

Do you have empirical evidence that your spouse/equivalent loves you?

Or do you have trust/faith that they do based on what you believe about them?

As the atheist writer said, it is a Category Error to assign love, or religion, to be provable by science.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-12 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

A couple questions for those steeped in the world of science.

Do you believe that there are millions of earth like planets capable of supporting life in the universe?

Would these earth like planets evolve similarly or differently than our planet?

What are the odds of these planets evolving exactly like our planet to the microscopic detail?

What would you surmise should other planets be found and that life evolved exactly like ours?

#17 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-02-12 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

As the atheist writer said

Who gives a crap.

Stop with the irrelevant pseudo-intellectual crap already.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-12 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

"A couple questions ... "

You asked four.
Learn to count.

#19 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014-02-12 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 4

As the atheist writer said, it is a Category Error to assign love, or religion, to be provable by science.
#14 | POSTED BY CORKY

I disagree, we know there are three levels/chemicals involved with of "love".
www.pbs.org

So this is a definition problem, not a Category Error. Religion being provable, well it depends upon which question about religion is being asked.

Do you believe that there are millions of earth like planets capable of supporting life in the universe?

I don't know....

Would these earth like planets evolve similarly or differently than our planet?

Define evolve....

What are the odds of these planets evolving exactly like our planet to the microscopic detail?

Again, you need to define "Evolve".

What would you surmise should other planets be found and that life evolved exactly like ours?

I am of the opinion that DNA may not be an earth only feature. DNA may have travelled through space, or given its structure if could have "evolved" randomly.

#20 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-02-12 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even more interesting....

What if the evolutionary purpose of love is to get us out of relationships, not into them?
qz.com

#21 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-02-12 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18

I'll take that as he wants lab results on his lover's love.

-three levels/chemicals involved with of "love".

By-products, not causation.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-12 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated must translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values. Their proposals must be subject to argument and reason, and should not be accorded any undue automatic respect."

– President Barack Obama

#26 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-02-12 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26

Agreed.

But people shouldn't be ignorant of facts. Like say that, "the wall between church and state " was first used in a letter by Jefferson responding to a letter he received from a group of Baptists who wanted the state to stay out of their business rather than the other way around.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-12 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated must translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values. Their proposals must be subject to argument and reason, and should not be accorded any undue automatic respect."

An interesting statement. Who gets to decide what are universal values? Do such things actually exist?

#28 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-02-12 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only way theists can respond to the actual points being made by Attenborough is to either change the focus of the conversation or create strawmen. His scientific observations, and the fact that these same observations can be made anywhere in the world regardless of local culture or beliefs belies any response from those claiming literal truth in the Bible.

#30 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-12 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

well at least this is better than the typical DR quest of 'how many people eat pizza today', but folks like moder8 just sound like a whiny bitsch (ala Jesse Pinkman).

rip on creationists all you want but to say you know anything definitive is hilariously ironic.

now go pat yourselves on the back and say 'moo'.

#33 | Posted by happyending at 2014-02-12 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | Posted by Daniel
"...for those steeped in the world of science."
Not steeped, but my feet are wet.

"Do you believe that there are millions of earth like planets capable of supporting life in the universe?"
Yes. Why wouldn't there be?

"Would these earth like planets evolve similarly or differently than our planet?"
Depends on their makeup, but given that H, C, N, and O are four of the most common elements in the universe, and given that heavier elements all come from the same processes, it's reasonable to assume a somewhat similar evolutionary pattern. Certainly wouldn't be surprised by it.

"What are the odds of these planets evolving exactly like our planet to the microscopic detail?"
To answer this specific question, very low odds, but if you omit "exactly" and "microscopic detail", we have a ball game.

"What would you surmise should other planets be found and that life evolved exactly like ours?"
Too vague a question. Again, though, why "exactly"?

What is the over-arcing question you're burning to ask?

#35 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-02-12 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#31 Do you like apples. 8^)

#36 | Posted by schmanch at 2014-02-12 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

it is a Category Error to assign love, or religion, to be provable by science.

Love is a word that means many many things to many people.

Define love (be specific) and I bet someone can give you a scientific explanation for it.

Same for Religion.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-12 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"..science behind evolution and the fossils that show the development of animal species for decades, and yet recent years have seen an uptick in the number of Americans who believe God put humans directly on earth."

I believe both. Why is the subject posited as either-or???

#38 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-13 02:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Define love (be specific)"

Hope for Donnerboy yet. That is the first question.

#39 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-13 03:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Mr. Attenborough,

Don't you understand the ruling class needs people who will kill for them while believing its for God. You're messing up their illusions. At least they still have the Mormons.

#40 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

"At least they still have the Mormons."

Huh? Mitt Romney used his Mormonism to dodge the draft.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-13 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't have any answer to the question.

#31 | POSTED BY JPW

ft

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

And I love science, which in many case confirms the old texts rather than contradicts them
Please hate science! There is no need for such friends of science.

#43 | Posted by fribo at 2014-02-13 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

This article isn't about evidence that supports evolution since none was cited, only a categorical claim that "all the evidence is there". All I see here is intolerance and bigotry. Some people don't believe what Attnenborough believes and he seems to have lost patience for that.

He's hasn't made his case. People need to believe in evolution so that.........

#44 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry, not a hater.

Perhaps you can answer the question, though.

Do you have empirical evidence that your spouse/equivalent loves you
or do you have trust/faith that they do based on what you believe about them?

Here's some interesting since for ya, btw.

www.sciencedaily.com

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Attenborough hits the nail on the head. If a person is determined to reject all the evidence, there is nothing more that can be said.

#1 | POSTED BY MODER8

There is very little in the way of evidence.

Help me out her mod;

Life started out as a one celled thing in a swamp. Where did the swamp come from? Next came the fish. How did it go from one cell to a fish? Then it crawled out of the water and grew lungs. Then it decided to be warm blooded. Now that was a hard decision to make for a fish.

This is really complicated with loads of funny dots to connect.

#46 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-13 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Danni,

The same rules do not apply to the 1% and the 99%. The Mormons have a 1% class just like other groups.

#47 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

some interesting science

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Attenborough's great great great grandmother was throbbing pond ooze. Consider, creationism or evolution, neither explanation changes the state of current affairs, or science for that matter. But I'd rather live in a world where God's Laws and the sense of morality we derive from them are held close by its inhabitants.

#49 | Posted by lel2007 at 2014-02-13 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why do you need "God's Laws" to have a sense of morality? I have never understood that. Is it because left to your own devices you would be a horrible mother raping, pig stealing, grandma beating murderer?

But again that is just another strawman. The evidence supporting evolution remains regardless of what part of the planet you visit or what culture you interact with.

#50 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-13 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

So called "God's Laws" which are really created by man, provide a useful social stratification, but nothing close to a morally centered society. Don't mean to suggest that there aren't any true believers that live a moral life, only that those at the top in income do not. Our often called Christian Nation murders for money all the time. It steals from the poor to give to the rich. It is poisoning the planet with radiation and a myriad of toxic chemicals. Along with elevating man above other animals and plants, it is overcrowding the planet in defiance of any realistic sustainable economic system.

#51 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

You aren't offering any evidence moder8. You're just saying that it is there. But that isn't the argument. Please tell us why people need to believe in evolution.

#52 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Our often called Christian Nation murders for money all the time. It steals from the poor to give to the rich.

Goes both ways, doesn't it? What with this wealth redistribution program B. Hussein Obama has put the country on, it seems very likely that the 1% will be knocked down to everyone else's level here soon enough because of the Robin-Hood-in-Chief. Or is that just hyperbole?

#53 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"ignorance of creationists, polluters, and climate change deniers."

I'm sick of the ignorance of the Climatology Worshipers, the polluters, and the Christian haters.

#54 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-13 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

[...] If you are really interested read "The Selfish Gene" or the "Panda's Thumb" or maybe something from Attenborough. Many of us have but don't have the time or space here to educate you. The evidence is everywhere and there is no pace in biology or any of the other life sciences for anything except the most mythological and psychological interpretations of the Bible, Koran or Book of Mormon.

#55 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-the Robin-Hood-in-Chief

www.drudge.com

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Attenborough is an idiot. He probably believed in Piltdown man until it was proven a hoax, he probably believed birds evolved from dinosaurs until it was proven false. Every time these pseudo science evolotionists get proven wrong these just change their theory.

Which evolved first the heart or the blood vessels? You need both working at the same time to be alive.
Plants or animals? Oxygen for one and carbon dioxide for the other. Hmmm.
Every fossil of so called early man would fit in one coffin. Not much evidence to me but hey if you are a true believer it doesn't matter.

#57 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-02-13 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

LastA is full of it as usual. We don't hate Christians, our Mothers or apple pie. Pity the ignorant. The vaste majority of polluters embrace Christianity, without recognizing it for the violation of sustainable natural law that it is.

#58 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#42 | Posted by Corky

You're asking something that's been asked far longer than we've been "debating" it on the DR.

It'd be the same as me asking if God can create a rock he can't lift; it's been asked ad nauseum for a looooonnng time, making it a rather lame attempt at arguing on my part.

BTW, of course there isn't an answer, it's why you selected it in the first place.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Organized religion becomes both a mental illness and a philosophical privation once you add in an ultimate predestination. The ultimate has no need of clay feet. i.e. all attributes are lies.

#60 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-13 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

RCADE, can we just dedicate one day of the week for creationism-versus-
evolutionism threads? It sucks the life out of the party.

#57 When was "birds evolved from dinosaurs" proven false? Link, please.

#61 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-13 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

People need to believe in evolution so that.........

First you need to stop thinking about it in terms of belief. That's far too rigid a concept to apply to something as fluid as science.

All I see here is intolerance and bigotry.

If you were better informed on the topic you'd understand why.

Having people arrogantly tell you evolution is a "lie" or "religion" or some other nonsense when they can only offer critiques that were cutting edge decades ago doesn't deserve to be met with anything more than derisiveness. The amount of information one must ignore to do this is astounding.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Whether there is a God or not is an entirely separate question from using evidence to reconstruct the history of our planet. The more we understand about the history of our planet, the lesser God's role. In fact God is unnecessary to explain any of the earth's history. But as JPW points out that doesn't prove he doesn't exist. Big deal. Evolution is real and sufficient to explain life on earth, but not entirely complete.

#63 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

There is very little in the way of evidence.

Hogwash that shows your willful ignorance, nothing more.

This is really complicated with loads of funny dots to connect.

Many of which have already been connected. You clearly have internet access, look it up. It's not as big a mystery as you seem to think it is.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#57 by the way, what is MCMLCXX?

#65 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-13 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#56 | POSTED BY CORKY

So you're saying it's hyperbole?

#66 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

he probably believed birds evolved from dinosaurs until it was proven false

Link?

#67 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hugeknot,

If you are really interested read "The Selfish Gene" or the "Panda's Thumb" or maybe something from Attenborough. Many of us have but don't have the time or space here to educate you. The evidence is everywhere and there is no pace in biology or any of the other life sciences for anything except the most mythological and psychological interpretations of the Bible, Koran or Book of Mormon.

#55 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why do people need to believe in evolution?
All you have to do is offer a single sentence:
People need to believe in evolution so that....

#68 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#63 Best DR post ever on the topic.

#69 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-13 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

People need to believe in evolution so that....
#68 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT

...They can be considered up to date.

#70 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL
Why should they care if you consider them up to date?

#71 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a moronic thread. Anybody that wastes time debating creationism needs a check-up from the neck up.

#72 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-13 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

apparently hugeknot just isn't interested in learning. He's comfortable with what he thinks he knows. That's fine. No one is forcing you. Reading was just a suggestion.

#73 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Attenborough didn't argue whether evolution was true or not. He argued that people need to believe in evolution. Why do they need to??

He has no answer and apparently no one else does either.

#74 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#72 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I don't think Bill Nye needs a check up from the neck up. His recent debate opponent, maybe. But not Bill. He seems pretty level headed to me.

#75 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

#68 You fallaciously believe that people NEED to "believe" in evolution, Hugs. I believe evolution has been proven sufficiently through scientific observation of evidence, but I don't NEED to. You phrase it "believe IN evolution" as if evolution is a religion, like "I'll go to heaven if I believe IN evolution", which is inaccurate and semantically misleading. I believe evolution is fact, just like I believe Boyle's Law is fact or I believe that atoms exist.

#76 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-13 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

He has no answer and apparently no one else does either.
#74 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT

I just gave you an answer, that which you ignore? Ignorance is not bliss, HUGGIES.

#77 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

-BTW, of course there isn't an answer,

It's an either/or question.

The answer is obviously the latter, you just won't admit it.

#78 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think that people need to believe in evolution. That's Attenborough.

#79 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which evolved first the heart or the blood vessels? You need both working at the same time to be alive.
Plants or animals? Oxygen for one and carbon dioxide for the other. Hmmm.

Wow. Stinging critique.

You realize these answers can be found in a basic college (high school maybe?) textbook.

Circulatory systems exist in multiple forms in the animal world, from open (basically fluid that moves throughout the body) to simple one chamber hearts, two chamber hearts and four chamber hearts.

www.google.com

As for plants, animals and oxygen, also easily found.

en.wikipedia.org

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

you just won't admit it.

Because it's a lame sidetrack that's long been beaten to death.

We get it corky, love isn't quantifiable by science. Nor are other things.

It's sad that you've harped on this non-point for so long now.

#81 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

"We get it corky, love isn't quantifiable by science. Nor are other things.

It's sad that you've harped on this non-point for so long now."

I don't know if Corky is hiding, if he is just being dishonest, or he is just stupid. But it is pathetic at this point. Why is he so unable to deal with the fundamental scientific truth of evolution? Why?

#82 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-13 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-We get it corky, love isn't quantifiable by science. Nor are other things.

The assertion was made by M8 above that the former was true and that it was not a Category Error to answer religious/philosophical questions with science, and I responded with the question, which you then derided.

"Explaining religion - or, indeed, the human experience - in scientific terms is futile." is what I quoted from the atheist author and agreed with.

Some people think science is the answer to every question, no matter the category.

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's sad, of course, is that it took you so long to admit the obvious.

#84 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think you two were talking past each other.

There are ways of scientifically investigating the Bible, ie archeological findings. The Bible is not untouchable by science.

Now the spiritual side of it? No.

But, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, your insistence on narrowing it to those aspects while ignoring the rest is what he took issue with and why he pointed out you were clinging to anything to maintain your religious beliefs.

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What's sad, of course, is that it took you so long to admit the obvious.

Wouldn't think I had to.

I wouldn't expect you to explicitly state you disagree/are disgusted by pedophiles. Why? Because it's obvious.

#86 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Love is, indeed, quantifiable and investigable, which is why we now know love is nothing more than a process of biology and chemistry: en.wikipedia.org

#87 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Why do we need to understand the laws of gravity, or solid state physics, or mechanics, or thermodynamics? We don't that's for sure. You don't even need to know simple arithmetic to operate a cash register at McDonalds. But for some reason learning is stimulating just like hunting, whether the next meal or the opposite sex. Music too enriches our lives. It is a need, but not on the same level as clean air or food.

#88 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-13 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

A description of mechanics, not causation.
#89 | POSTED BY CORKY

I was offering a retort to the following: "We get it corky, love isn't quantifiable by science."

A description of the mechanics of anything would first require quantification, would it not?

#90 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-13 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Why do you need "God's Laws" to have a sense of morality?

#50 | Posted by moder8 at 2014

In Texas, Libertarians made a go at taking over one of our counties politically. Part of their program? Legalization of cannibalism.

The Libertarians in question will argue, intensely, that they are just as moral as anyone else.

Its all a crock, of course.

#91 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-13 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone needs to ask if those Nigerians cooking people are Randians. If not, they'd fit in.

A little input from God will do none of these people any harm.

#92 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-13 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a moron. Is that something on your mind? Obviously it is.

No, I picked something so obvious in nature I hoped you would just stop commenting on it.

Apparently not.

Your reaction to my post originally was to call it pseudo-scientific crap, rather than to agree with it, as you finally did.

Because it seems that on every evolution thread you try to force your typical, one trick of atheism, religion and arguments over God's existence.

Which is pseudo-scientific crap for the very reasons you mention, they're not topics addressed by science. So why bring them up?

Because. It's. All. You. Got.

#93 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

-they're not topics addressed by science.

I see, so the science of evolution, among other things, is not used to supposedly debunk religion?

My, my. What corners some people paint themselves into defending the stupid things they say.

#94 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

" is not used to supposedly debunk religion?"

lol

Science ignores religion.
After all, it's just crap.

#95 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014-02-13 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#95

Just another fundie know-it-all, only an atheist rather than a theist fundie.

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course, as I have said many times here. I see no conflict between the theory of evolution and those ancient texts, so I don't have a dog in that fight.

Regardless of the strawmen others create about "Why" I can't follow evolution.

#97 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#57 | Posted by mcmlcxx

And we have a winner!

#98 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-02-13 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

My, my. What corners some people paint themselves into defending the stupid things they say.

My my, what stupid things people will say to protect their fragile little egos.

Nice strawman. You really kicked its [...], though.

#99 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

-I see, so the science of evolution, among other things, is not used to supposedly debunk religion?

Not. A. Strawman.

You said: "... they're not topics addressed by science. So why bring them up?"

But wait, yes they are used as topics addressed by science by some here, as I pointed out to you.

Perhaps you should reconsider jumping onto a thread and criticizing someone for what they say when they are disagreeing with someone whom you also disagree with.

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-13 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

The fact that several of you don't know the bird from dinosaur hypothesis was proven false proves my point exactly. You really don't know or understand something you profess to believe in.

Try reading and then asking yourself some questions. Questions like if something was the first living organism how could it replicate, consume energy, dispose of waste, evolve?

Get back to me when you have a coherent answer to any of these questions.

#101 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-02-13 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just so you know chances are Attenborough is talking about Literalists and YEC's.

After all in a manner of speaking all who believe in the big bang are creationists and Darwin's co-disoveror of evolution remains admired.

#102 | Posted by Tor at 2014-02-13 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wouldn't expect you to explicitly state you disagree/are disgusted by pedophiles. Why? Because it's obvious.

#86 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 02:34 PM

If its that obvious, why were so many "christians" at it for so long?

#103 | Posted by Sord at 2014-02-13 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"ignorance of creationists, polluters, and climate change deniers."

I agree with the first two, but the last i must admit I am still skeptical.

#104 | Posted by danv at 2014-02-13 07:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Santa and jezus are white..end of story...nite, nite..tooth fairy coming..

#105 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-02-13 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#101 Birds and Dinosaurs have common ancestors.
The first living organism could replicate, consume energy, dispose of waste and evolve by definition.
If you want to argue abiogenesis say so, but that is not the same as evolution and if you had a clue you would know that.

#106 | Posted by bored at 2014-02-13 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

My dispute is with Macro evolution(they changing from one species into another. There is virtually no fossil evidence for this and yet evolutionary theorist keep beeping their horns in belief. They every time one of their notions is disproven they just contort their beliefs into somehthing else. Sounds like faith rather than science.

#107 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-02-13 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is virtually no fossil evidence

Lie much?

#108 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014-02-13 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lie much?
#108 | POSTED BY ZATOICHI AT 2014-02-13 07:51 PM

He's not lying. He actually believes what he's saying. He's a moron that embraces ignorance.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-13 07:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

He's right. The fossil record is sorely lacking. When it comes to transitional species. Many of the so called transitional species are mockups from one or two bones.
Attenborough never argued the validity of evolution though. He stated that he has lost patience for people who don't believe in evolution. Why should anyone care?

#110 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

By the way millions of fossils have been found. There should be millions of transitional species found also.

#111 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speaking of fossils.....

Scientists recently discovered a common ancestor to the whale and.....hippo.

I am serious.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-13 09:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lol
And nothing in between

#113 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I want to see the half hippo half whale fossil. The one with nubs four legs. They can't walk but can't swim either.

#114 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I want to see the half hippo half whale fossil. The one with nubs four legs. They can't walk but can't swim either.

#114 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT AT 2014-02-13 09:44 PM

Thanks for proving you have no clue what a transitional species is.

#115 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-13 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#114

I learned about it on one of those nature channel specials.

Armed with this knowledge a small group of scientists began observing hippo behaviors with the knowledge of whale ancestry and found some striking similarities, most notably, hippos communicate under-water with sounds eerily similar to those of whales.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-13 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't remember the minutia, but they had found an ancient whale fossil and it shared a specific bone with modern-day hippos.

#117 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-13 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

There should be a series of colorful pictures somewhere.

#118 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-13 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#118

www.berkeley.edu

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-13 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

There should be a series of colorful pictures somewhere.

#118 | POSTED BY HUGUENOT AT 2014-02-13 09:58 PM

LOL!

It would help republicans understand evolution if there were one.

#120 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-13 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why should anyone care?

Because it is one of the most (if not the most) well supported scientific theories in existence that is absolutely essential to modern biological research and medicine.

If one can simply rationalize that away in favor of their personal religious beliefs, then we're in big trouble.

But even taking it a step back from that, there isn't a problem with people not accepting evolution. If they want to be willfully ignorant and a moron, that's their prerogative.

The problem becomes when they want to spread that willful ignorance via schooling or education.

#121 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-13 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Huguenot wrote,

"By the way millions of fossils have been found. There should be millions of transitional species found also."

Millions of transitional species? Could you name the ones that turned into elephants? Pigs? Surely just these two would be a nice start to the millions you suggest.

I love ignorant people.

#122 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-02-14 03:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey ya'll...I seen on TV them aliens done created us'ns!

#123 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-02-14 05:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

I love ignorant people.

Clearly. You've been barfing your ignorant nonsense all over this thread.

#124 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-14 06:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Millions of transitional species? Could you name the ones that turned into elephants? Pigs?

#122 | Posted by mcmlcxx at

Chris Christie.

#125 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 08:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Thanks for proving you have no clue what a transitional species is.

#115 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Enlighten us clo.

#126 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-14 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

The evidence is everywhere ......

#55 | POSTED BY NUTCASE

Just like the evidence for 'man made global warming'.

#127 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-02-14 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Attenborough never argued the validity of evolution. Only that people need to believe in evolution. That's his point. People need to believe in evolution. WHY?

#128 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-14 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a shame, our society should be far more advanced if not for religeous zealots stifling our ascension.

#129 | Posted by drewl at 2014-02-14 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dear Mr. Broken Record (aka hugeknot),

...because the theory of evolution is the only explanation consistent with historical scientific evidence; geological, biological, paleontological....physical such as correlations between carbon 14 and potassium argon dating....and on and on...slowly but surely the pieces of the historical puzzle are coming together. The human race has had about 155 years to reconstruct a 6 billion year history of the earth. Human civilization is only about 15,000 years old. It should not surprise anyone that that work is incomplete. That incompleteness says nothing about the accuracy of the theory.

No one needs to believe in evolution. The vaste majority of scientists are compelled to believe it based on the available evidence. The best explanations of these compelling arguments are provided by Richard Dawkins. Those who reject this theory are not going to be able to hold a job in a related field.

#130 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-14 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is simply not the case.
For instance the driving force for evolution is supposedly genetic mutation and natural selection. DNA rarely mutates. When it does 999 times out of a thousand it's detrimental not useful. If you calculated a string of 200 positive mutations it becomes outlandishly statistically impossible. Billions of trillions to one. Then multiply that by the number of species even alive today and there wouldn't be enough time in a trillion years.

That's not the argument though.
What does it matter if people don't believe in evolution? It doesn't. How does it harm anyone that someone doesn't believe in evolution?
They might teach their kids that evolution is bunk? In other words, people need to believe in evolution so that there won't be more people that don't believe in evolution? Is that the argument?

#131 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-14 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

DNA rarely mutates.

[CITATION NEEDED]

lol

Lie some more.

#132 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014-02-14 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mutation rates in mammalian genomes
Abstract
Knowledge of the rate of point mutation is of fundamental importance, because mutations are a vital source of genetic novelty and a significant cause of human diseases. Currently, mutation rate is thought to vary many fold among genes within a genome and among lineages in mammals. We have conducted a computational analysis of 5,669 genes (17,208 sequences) from species representing major groups of placental mammals to characterize the extent of mutation rate differences among genes in a genome and among diverse mammalian lineages. We find that mutation rate is approximately constant per year and largely similar among genes. Similarity of mutation rates among lineages with vastly different generation lengths and physiological attributes points to a much greater contribution of replication-independent mutational processes to the overall mutation rate. Our results suggest that the average mammalian genome mutation rate is 2.2 × 10−9 per base pair per year, which provides further opportunities for estimating species and population divergence times by using molecular clocks.

www.pnas.org

lol

#133 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014-02-14 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

As Richard Dawkins points out, our purpose is to procreate our genes, which outlive us all many times over. Our complexity serves only to perpetuate life's most rudimentary building blocks. Our complexity serves us well on the scale of life on earth in a competitive jungle. This explanation is as good as any and better than any religious explanation of life or man.

#134 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-14 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

2.2 × 10−9

WOW!
2.2 times 1/10000000000 for a chance of a mutation per year. Times divide by 1000 to get a positive mutation then add 200 zeros to it to get a sequence of 200 positive mutations. You challenge that DNA doesn't mutate often??

#135 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-14 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

#134

And oh so meaningful, lol.

We might as well be cockroaches.

#136 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

As Richard Dawkins points out, our purpose is to procreate our genes, which outlive us all many times over. Our complexity serves only to perpetuate life's most rudimentary building blocks. Our complexity serves us well on the scale of life on earth in a competitive jungle. This explanation is as good as any and better than any religious explanation of life or man.

#134 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-14 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cool.
Creationists are procreating.

#137 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-14 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#135 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-14 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Math Whizz

.

#138 | Posted by Dave at 2014-02-14 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL
"Divide by 1000"
Sorry to confuse you.

#139 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-14 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

As Richard Dawkins points out, our purpose is to procreate our genes

Purpose?

Science can describe the physical world in terms of cause and effect while being in accord with specific natural laws.

We do procreate. The biological mechanisms as described by physics and biochemistry explain how we do it. Environmental factors, likewise described by scientific method, give us insight on how changes may have occurred over eons in biological entities.

Purpose, however, is a loaded word--that has a range of meanings. It can easily imply a plan or a design. Note the idiomatic use of the phrase "on purpose." The etymology of the word speaks to this too--as it is cognate with the word "propose" and "proposal." The purpose of doing something when given is a kind of justification--a rationale.

Thus assigning purpose in the natural world can easily require a whole range of philosophical arguments--some of which imply a rationale or reason governing nature. In doing so you are on a slippery slope in which you can easily anthropomorphize nature or postulate an intelligence overseeing the process.

Do you really want to go there?

#140 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-02-14 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Sorry to confuse you."

I'm not the one who's confused, bonehead.

That would be you.

Still.

.

#141 | Posted by Dave at 2014-02-14 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL
Right....

This conversation always wants to go in the direction of debating the validity of evolution. According to Attenborough that's not in question so why do all of you DRers seem intent on proving evolution? Just join Attenborough and consider it a foregone conclusion.

Now explain the intolerance and bigotry.

#142 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-02-14 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Religion is not a choice, people are just born that way.

#143 | Posted by jdmeth at 2014-02-14 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you really want to go there?

#140 | Posted by Grendel

oh oh I do!

The purpose of Life is Life.

It's simple.

Life plans on surviving. It is natural that it do so.

Everything that has evolved did so because it helped improve the chances of the survival and continuation of LIFE.

Now if you want discuss the very origins of Life and how It came to Be that is where we can get a little Philosophical if you like.

That Gap has not been filled so you may go ahead and use God as a place keeper until we can solve that riddle too if you like.

There are alternate theories.

#144 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

The purpose of Life is Life.

#144 | Posted by donnerboy at

That which survives, survives. Those who think, think. Those who don't, don't. Those who work, work. Those who feel....Well, they do that.

Reductionism. Sucks.

#145 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Life plans on surviving.

#144 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014

Sure. And it plans on putting whipped cream on its brownies.

#146 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 06:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are there really people here willing to tell their sons and daughters that, once they have reproduced, they've exhausted all the possible meaning there ever could be out of life?

Well.....Looks like it.

#147 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have a baby, raise it, and have the decency to die.

#148 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Life plans on surviving. It is natural that it do so.

Pathetic fallacy

#149 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-02-14 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Life had a beer and rested for seven days after planning all that survival.

#150 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure. And it plans on putting whipped cream on its brownies.

#146 | Posted by Zed

Now that it has evolved intelligence in response to it's continuing effort to survive why not whip cream on brownies. I am sure it happens. Adn now that you mention it I may do it myself to prove a point. Life does plan to put whip cream on it's brownies!

The "purpose" of Life is more life. Period.

It so simple. I can see why you Religulous missed it. Like you missed for so long that the Earth was not flat though it was so obvious.

Once we shifted our perspective slightly it was easy to see. And now we cannot fathom how someone would not know this.

The Universe has risen up to look upon and marvel upon Itself. Maybe THAT is what It intended all along. Is the Universe alive. Well. It is now.

Saying that a God did it is a cop out and does not explain God it just kicks the can down (up?) the road one more level.

Is that an acceptable answer to you? That is not acceptable to me or most of my scientific colleagues.

#151 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Are there really people here willing to tell their sons and daughters that, once they have reproduced, they've exhausted all the possible meaning there ever could be out of life?

Well.....Looks like it.

#147 | Posted by Zed

Passing on your intelligence and experience to your progeny helps life to survive. And there is no reason why you can't enjoy yourself a bit while you do it.

The Earth Abides.

#152 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pathetic fallacy

#149 | POSTED BY GRENDEL

Indeed.

#153 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 07:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those who feel....Well, they do that.

Reductionism. Sucks.

#145 | Posted by Zed

We are all Damned and none of us are Damned.

#154 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now that it (Life) has evolved intelligence in response to it's continuing effort to survive

#151 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-

No, it didn't.

"It" isn't providing anything.

You may as well say that "It" wants to play in a rock band.

#155 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

We are all Damned and none of us are Damned.

#154 | Posted by donnerboy at

Damned to what? A Hell you don't believe in? How does that work? Or that none of are damned to that non-existant Hell?

According to you, as long as we're all making babies, everything is achieved. Everything is jake.

#156 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It" isn't providing anything.

You may as well say that "It" wants to play in a rock band.

#155 | Posted by Zed

Intelligence is the direct result of evolution.

And IT loves rock and roll.

#157 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zed, don't you know that Mother Nature is OK, you know, Nature with a creative personality that makes things work a certain way, but God is so... de rigueur.

#158 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you think I go on and on. I have, in fact, been known to do that. But all I'm doing is pointing out that you don't understand your own point of view. I'm also pointing out that your point of view is so limited you have to borrow from me in order to fight my ideas.

#159 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

And IT loves rock and roll.

#157 | Posted by donnerboy

Even though there's no point or meaning to it? Beyond helping get some big-tiited hippie drunk and pregnant during a concert.

#160 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you think I go on and on. I have, in fact, been known to do that.

What?! You have a hard time answering simple, straight forward questions let alone expounding on anything.

#161 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Meant to say "Big titted hippie chick" but, since I have already had three kids, it doesn't matter what I say. Now.

#162 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

You have a hard time answering simple, straight forward questions let alone expounding on anything.

#161 | Posted by rstybeach11

Doesn't matter, does it? My genes go on. How about yours?

#163 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even though there's no point or meaning to it?
#160 | POSTED BY ZED

No point or meaning to rock and roll?

Look out, ZED! Looks like your kids found a stash of nutmeg.

#164 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

My genes go on. How about yours?
#163 | POSTED BY ZED

I bet you dollars to donuts I have more kids than you.

#165 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Edit: I have spread my genes further than you have.

#166 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

straight forward questions

161 | Posted by rstybeach11

Like, do you have any kids? Do you? If you don't, then according to DONNER, you've missed out on the meaning of life. All of it, in fact.

#167 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Edit: I have spread my genes further than you have.

#166 | Posted by rstybeach11

Smearing does not count.

#168 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I bet you dollars to donuts I have more kids than you.

#165 | Posted by rstybeach11 at

How many? I have three. Raised them all, too. How about you?

#169 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Smearing does not count.
#168 | POSTED BY ZED

I frequent the sperm bank at least twice a year. Been doing it since I was 21. I'm sure I have fulfilled my quota re: DONNER's meaning of life.

Still doesn't acknowledge your inability to admit speculation.

#170 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

How many? I have three. Raised them all, too. How about you?
#169 | POSTED BY ZED

They don't tell us. And I haven't raised a single one.

#171 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I frequent the sperm bank at least twice a year.

#170 | Posted by rstybeach11

Wonderful. Now, do you have any children?

#172 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

And I haven't raised a single one.

#171 | Posted by rstybeach11 at

I feel sorry for you.

#173 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now, do you have any children?
#172 | POSTED BY ZED

Depends on your definition of "have". If you mean "raise," then no. If you mean "are there children in the world who have your parental genes," then yes.

#174 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, the point of your life is to visit the sperm bank twice each year.

How is that other than sad?

#175 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I feel sorry for you.
#173 | POSTED BY ZED

So?

#176 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

So?

#176 | Posted by rstybeach11

Hey, man. Its your life. You obviously like it.

More than that I'm not sure is possible to say about you.

#177 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, the point of your life is to visit the sperm bank twice each year.
#175 | POSTED BY ZED

My definition of "the meaning of life" has nothing to do with procreation. That's DONNER's definition that you have now assigned to me.

Your debating methods are becoming even more clear. Interesting I didn't get this much attention from you when I asked about your possible use of speculation the other day.

#178 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

More than that I'm not sure is possible to say about you.
#177 | POSTED BY ZED

No ZED, it says a whole lot about you.

#179 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Your debating methods

#178 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 07:57 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Debate has nothing to do with this discussion. We're comparing values.

Although I remain uncertain what yours really are.

No kids? Damn.

#180 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How many? I have three."

What do you want? A medal for contributing to overpopulation?

#181 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-14 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

No ZED, it says a whole lot about you.

#179 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014

Nonny-nonny-boo. What you say, sticks on you.

Time travel to the 4th Grade, one more definition of Hell.

#182 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

What do you want? A medal for contributing to overpopulation?

#181 | Posted by nullifidian at

Do your folks deserve a medal, NULLI? I think so.

#183 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

They deserve a refund, lol.

#184 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pardon me. I think I'll call up my children and tell them I love them. Perhaps the sperm bank can send cards to some of you on Father's Day.

#185 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do your folks deserve a medal, NULLI? I think so."

Because they had sex? No.

#186 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-14 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

We're comparing values.

You just assigned me a position. You're doing a little more than simply "comparing values."

No kids? Damn.
#180 | POSTED BY ZED

Nope, no kids. Unlike DONNER, and you, not everyone wants, or likes, kids.

#187 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#185 | POSTED BY ZED

LOL! They actually do exactly that.

#188 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I like kids; Medium rare in a caper sauce with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

#189 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014-02-14 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pathetic fallacy

Really?

I think that it's spot on biologically.

#190 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-14 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I like kids; Medium rare in a caper sauce with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Yeah, that joke ran out of gas a long time ago. Time for some new material.

#192 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-14 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can understand that there are many reasons why people cannot, and choose not, to have kids.What I can't understand is how and why some people don't LIKE kids.

Especially given that, at least theoretically, they were once kids themselves.

That's sick

Why is it sick?

I'm sure there are a variety of reasons that people don't like kids, and they don't have to necessarily be shallow things like they're loud, or they smell or whatever.

I find it better that they recognize this and don't have kids than have kids and neglect them because of it. [...]

#194 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-14 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

some people don't LIKE kids...That's sick.
#193 | POSTED BY ZED

Is that speculation? Or do you know something about the literature that I don't?

#196 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pathetic fallacy

I think that it's spot on biologically.

Nature plans? Really?

If you attempt to prove it, you will be arguing for intelligent design.

#197 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-02-14 10:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you attempt to prove it, you will be arguing for intelligent design.

No, no it doesn't plan, which is why Corky's post 158 sucks.

However, after rereading donnerboy's post 144, I see the issue. It's definitely poorly worded.

But the elegant, I think, part of evolution is that that essence is true; genomic instability (whether it be mutation or gene transfer) is finely tuned to ensure diversity in populations but is not rampant enough to be lethal.

Life is fine tuned to ensure propagation of life.

#198 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-14 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Life is fine tuned to ensure propagation of life.

You language is still steeped in the pathetic fallacy. Finely tuned implies a tuner.

I can't believe I have to argue this, but the most you can say is that whatever life currently exist is just the playing out of all matter operating at atomic and subatomic levels given basic operating principals (what we metaphorically call laws) and mathematical probability over time.

Notions of elegance, beauty, harmony etc, are the projection of human subjective and arbitrary values and meaning onto meaningless natural phenomena.

There are only brute mechanical facts regarding the way the universe operates, and even distinctions between life and non life are the results of human constructs.

If the universe needs no intelligence to design it and maintain it; it needs no intelligence to perceive it and describe it either.

For billions of years as far as we know the universe existed without entities to perceive it. We may just as easily not have occurred for that matter.

For the universe devoid of humanity to possess the quality of elegance and beauty would require that elegance and beauty at least as ideas exist independent of human beings. How could that be true?

#199 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-02-14 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eyes drooping, blissfull sleep calls, good night all.

#200 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-02-14 11:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

You language is still steeped in the pathetic fallacy. Finely tuned implies a tuner.

Ummmm yeah. Evolution via selective pressure.

This isn't rocket science LOL

Notions of elegance, beauty, harmony etc, are the projection of human subjective and arbitrary values and meaning onto meaningless natural phenomena.

So?

If the universe needs no intelligence to design it and maintain it; it needs no intelligence to perceive it and describe it either.

If you'd left it at perceive, I'd have no trouble with your statement.

Throwing "describe" into the mix doesn't by any means mean an intelligent being was required to "design and maintain" the universe. It just means we humans like to idolize our own dominance over our environment by giving ourselves special status as being created in an all powerful being's image.

For billions of years as far as we know the universe existed without entities to perceive it.

It's interesting that you feel anything less than the human perception indicates a complete lack of perception of the universe.

That is, unless you're talking about the time before life on Earth began.

We may just as easily not have occurred for that matter.

Indeed. I see no reason to assume our existence was guaranteed from the start.

For the universe devoid of humanity to possess the quality of elegance and beauty would require that elegance and beauty at least as ideas exist independent of human beings. How could that be true?

--------.

Just because I as a human can give that label (human created, BTW) to a concept or process doesn't mean that something other than humans must exist that can also apply the same or similar label.

The process exists independent of a human concept being applied to it.

#201 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-14 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eyes drooping, blissfull sleep calls, good night all.

Good night.

Don't let the evolutionarily refined bedbugs bite.

#202 | Posted by jpw at 2014-02-14 11:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth.

#203 | Posted by takitez at 2014-02-15 01:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort