Pretty much any religious argument and explanation. Most of the time I can't even tell if they're being serious [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law]
Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
Haha, I remember chewing through those books in an afternoon when I was a kid.twistedmic said:Yet another former co-worker thought that him (at age 17) reading all of the Goosebumps books in a year was an accomplishment.
"it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from" The Theory of Evolution doesn't address where life came from, it addresses the diversity of existing life. To misunderstand that is to demonstrate an utter ignorance of both the theory & of basic biology itself. 'Abiogenesis' is the name given to the hypothesis presented by Dr. Szostak (Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School & Distinguished Investigator in the Department of Molecular Biology at the Massachusetts General Hospital), who has successfully demonstrated a process where self-catalysing enzymes create replicating hydrocarbon polymer vesicles undergoing mutation.Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
It may be true that the theory of evolution is flawed, but every other theory is even more flawed since they depend on either an omnipotent being (which there is no evidence for) or space aliens (which not only there is no evidence for, but FTL travel is, as far as anyone can tell, completely impossible.)Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
You have proven nothing except natural selection is possible. Natural selection is the changes within a species, while evolution is the changing of a species entirely. I concur that gravity is a theory, that Copernicus had a theory, and all other theories you have mentioned. These all equally available for discussion and descent. THAT is the basis of science. Not saying that one theory is correct simply because there is no evidence against it. There is no supposition in fact. Fact must be fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and until that moment it is highly debatable. This is my qualm with evolution, there is NO debate. Everyone who believes in a theory outside of evolution is considered to be a lunatic, and that is a saddening blow to the credibility of science, and no better than the repressions committed by the ancient Catholic Church. In battling the enemy that is ignorance, you must be careful not to fall prey to the enemy of Arrogance, and the scientific community has not maintained that caution.catalyst8 said:"it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from" The Theory of Evolution doesn't address where life came from, it addresses the diversity of existing life. To misunderstand that is to demonstrate an utter ignorance of both the theory & of basic biology itself. 'Abiogenesis' is the name given to the hypothesis presented by Dr. Szostak (Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School & Distinguished Investigator in the Department of Molecular Biology at the Massachusetts General Hospital), who has successfully demonstrated a process where self-catalysing enzymes create replicating hydrocarbon polymer vesicles undergoing mutation.Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
"[...] has merit, as a theory and a theory alone." this demonstrates what can only be considered a tragic ignorance of the simplest scientific terminology. In a scientific context a 'theory' is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In common use the word 'theory' actually refers to a hypothesis, a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence. Other theories are the Theory of Gravity, of Electro Magnetism, Copernican Theory (sun at the centre of the solar system), Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Genetic Theory, Kinetic Theory, etc.
Evolution is documented in existing species from Italian wall lizards in Pod Mrcaru over the last few decades, the mosquito during the Blitz, to the peppered moth in England during the Industrial Revolution, & to numerous bacterial strains (e.g. Sphingomonas) around the world. Then there are transitional fossils like Proterogyrinus, as well as a wealth of genetic corroboration such as human Ch2 corresponding (even down to the join/splice) to Chs12 & 13 in chimps.
There is no peer-reviewed paper which contradicts Evolution.
The above-quoted text demonstrating ignorance of utterly basic science is my candidate for stupidest thing I've read or heard this week, possibly this month.
catalyst8 said:"it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from" The Theory of Evolution doesn't address where life came from, it addresses the diversity of existing life. To misunderstand that is to demonstrate an utter ignorance of both the theory & of basic biology itself. 'Abiogenesis' is the name given to the hypothesis presented by Dr. Szostak (Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School & Distinguished Investigator in the Department of Molecular Biology at the Massachusetts General Hospital), who has successfully demonstrated a process where self-catalysing enzymes create replicating hydrocarbon polymer vesicles undergoing mutation.Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
"[...] has merit, as a theory and a theory alone." this demonstrates what can only be considered a tragic ignorance of the simplest scientific terminology. In a scientific context a 'theory' is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In common use the word 'theory' actually refers to a hypothesis, a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence. Other theories are the Theory of Gravity, of Electro Magnetism, Copernican Theory (sun at the centre of the solar system), Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Genetic Theory, Kinetic Theory, etc.
Evolution is documented in existing species from Italian wall lizards in Pod Mrcaru over the last few decades, the mosquito during the Blitz, to the peppered moth in England during the Industrial Revolution, & to numerous bacterial strains (e.g. Sphingomonas) around the world. Then there are transitional fossils like Proterogyrinus, as well as a wealth of genetic corroboration such as human Ch2 corresponding (even down to the join/splice) to Chs12 & 13 in chimps.
There is no peer-reviewed paper which contradicts Evolution.
The above-quoted text demonstrating ignorance of utterly basic science is my candidate for stupidest thing I've read or heard this week, possibly this month.
I agree that all other theories are flawed. However, I argue that to judge one theory more favorably, just because all other theories have similar flaws, is folly. The base supposition that life was created by an omnipotent being(which I wholeheartedly believe in), is not based in science, but in Faith, which I believe to be the proper venue for dealing with such intangibilities as the beginning, development, and over-all meaning of life.Chrono180 said:It may be true that the theory of evolution is flawed, but every other theory is even more flawed since they depend on either an omnipotent being (which there is no evidence for) or space aliens (which not only there is no evidence for, but FTL travel is, as far as anyone can tell, completely impossible.)Skylane14 said:Well, because it is often trumpeted as the end all, be all solution for where life came from, when it is actually laughably flimsy. I'm a very "prove it" sort of guy, and so far I haven't seen any proof that evolution is even possible. Natural selection, yes. Evolution? No.Jedamethis said:If you don't mind my asking, why is it the stupidest thing you've ever heard?Skylane14 said:The Theory of Evolution.
Yeah, go ahead, laugh. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you can pry it from my cold, dead hands
I guess I should reform my statement a bit: The theory, as presented by Charles Darwin, while somewhat ridiculous, has merit, as a theory and a theory alone. The way it is presented, at least around here, as the Holy Grail of Science makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. That slavish devotion to a theory that hasn't even been proven as of yet tops every stupid thing I've ever heard from a religious fanatic, if only because religion, in and of itself, attracts fanaticism and fervor. It is built on the principle of believing the unbelievable. Science is supposed to be above that, but that sadly ceased being the case some time ago.
This is exactly what I was talking about a couple of posts above.Skylane14 said:I agree that all other theories are flawed. However, I argue that to judge one theory more favorably, just because all other theories have similar flaws, is folly. The base supposition that life was created by an omnipotent being(which I wholeheartedly believe in), is not based in science, but in Faith, which I believe to be the proper venue for dealing with such intangibilities as the beginning, development, and over-all meaning of life.
Please sir, we dance in dangerous territory here. I don't want to insight a flame war. Can we not communicate as adults? I do not fault you for your opinions. I simply state mine. I will not judge you as ignorant, stupid, or any of the other permutations for following Evolution, as any fault with the theory lies not with you, but with it's creators, and thus you and anyone else in the general public who follows the Theory of Evolution should not be thought less of for it. Can you not afford me the same courtesy while disagreeing with my views?SaunaKalja said:This is exactly what I was talking about a couple of posts above.Skylane14 said:I agree that all other theories are flawed. However, I argue that to judge one theory more favorably, just because all other theories have similar flaws, is folly. The base supposition that life was created by an omnipotent being(which I wholeheartedly believe in), is not based in science, but in Faith, which I believe to be the proper venue for dealing with such intangibilities as the beginning, development, and over-all meaning of life.
Well, I do not wish to insight a flame war, so I will state openly and honestly that this is merely my opinion based upon an equal study of evolutions proprietors and its detractors. I do not pretend to be the most knowledgeable man in my field, but I do my best to form an educated opinion.Link Yeah said:@Skyline14 & Chrono180
What are the flaws in the Theory of Evolution? As far as I'm aware it is far less flawed than say, Newton's law of universal gravitation. I'm not suggesting it is a complete model, I'm just curious as to what you consider to be Evolution's flaws.
Please enlighten me.
btw LOL at 4-bean chilli story
catalyst8 said:The above-quoted text demonstrating ignorance of utterly basic science is my candidate for stupidest thing I've read or heard this week, possibly this month.
Perhaps "Flaw" is the wrong term, a better term would be "Lack of evidence" Because as far a I know, scientists have yet to view speciation in a lab and thus it seems to be assumed that animal species can change species even though it has not been observed. Whether or not this a reasonable assumption to make depends on your point of view. Thats why I said it "May" be flawed. I am not smart enough to say for sure one way or the other.Link Yeah said:@Skyline14 & Chrono180
What are the flaws in the Theory of Evolution? As far as I'm aware it is far less flawed than say, Newton's law of universal gravitation. I'm not suggesting it is a complete model, I'm just curious as to what you consider to be Evolution's flaws.
Please enlighten me.
btw LOL at 4-bean chilli story