"Just don't ask the theory to make any predictions in this regard, because the subject will immediately turn to weather."
Actually, I believe it will turn to how stupid I am and how little I understand the theory of evolution.
Part of the problem here is that evolution's proponents don't seem to understand what they are arguing for.
On the other hand, if evolution really is abandoning the notion that simple life forms can take on added complexity by themselves through only random and environmental changes, that is a huge victory for evolution's critics. It means that evolution is now becoming so glaringly stupid that even the most simple minded will be able to see it as the sham that it is. ("See, our theory is that life on this planet began very simply. For lack of a better term, as primordial soup in which lived single, one celled animals. Where they came from, don't ask us. We tried to deal with that a long time ago, but our critics were too tough, so we created another branch of science to deal with that. They're on their own. Now, this primordial soup ended up evolving and spawning, through environmental changes the rich, diverse biosphere which we have today. This includes evolution's crowning achievement, man. However, it should be noted that evolution does not require the addition of any complexity into these animals. As anyone by the most stupidest religious fanatic can tell you, human beings are on the same order of complexity as primordial soup.")
Nah, I think we're just dealing with people who really don't understand what they're arguing in favor of.
What the ???? You shouldn't be so blunt about it.
It takes a lot of faith to believe in self-organizing matter. Blind faith, that is.
I hate to point out the obvious, but I will, in the form of a question:
Given a massive global catastrophy such as a giant meteor collision or a nuclear war, which is more likely to survive?
a) man
| b) termites Considering the answer to that question, what is really evolution's crowning achievement? |
I don't think you understand the evolution you argue against. Who started this "complexity" argument this afternoon. Whomever it was (Fester?) doesn't know what they're talking about.
Well, when you say things as wildly off-base as the following, you *should* indeed expect to be correctly informed that you don't understand the theory of evolution:
On the other hand, if evolution really is abandoning the notion that simple life forms can take on added complexity by themselves through only random and environmental changes, that is a huge victory for evolution's critics. It means that evolution is now becoming so glaringly stupid that even the most simple minded will be able to see it as the sham that it is. ("See, our theory is that life on this planet began very simply. For lack of a better term, as primordial soup in which lived single, one celled animals. Where they came from, don't ask us. We tried to deal with that a long time ago, but our critics were too tough, so we created another branch of science to deal with that. They're on their own. Now, this primordial soup ended up evolving and spawning, through environmental changes the rich, diverse biosphere which we have today. This includes evolution's crowning achievement, man. However, it should be noted that evolution does not require the addition of any complexity into these animals. As anyone by the most stupidest religious fanatic can tell you, human beings are on the same order of complexity as primordial soup.")
That was a classic "straw man" argument -- the kind where you tear down a distorted, cartoonish version of your target, instead of the real thing.
Nah, I think we're just dealing with people who really don't understand what they're arguing in favor of.
Oh yeah? Try me.