RyushiBlade on 12/3/2006 at 21:12
Heh, Fafhrd, when I clicked that article I first read, "Science Disproves Universe."
'Course, get enough scientists together and they could probably get you solid evidence to disprove anything.
Paz on 12/3/2006 at 22:41
Evolution people; I enjoy your theory and also the trauma it brings to certain religious persons (and, like d0om, am puzzled by this, as it does not appear to necessarily contradict anything Biblical unless you're some kind of uber-literalist). Can you please explain Giant Pandas to me, because they seem ... wrong?
(Yes, I've been watching Planet Earth on the Beeb)
So, ok, they only eat bamboo. This already seems kind of foolish, especially because they're even picky about WHICH BITS OF BAMBOO to eat. Bamboo doesn't provide much in the way of nutrition, so they have to basically eat all day and not move around very much.
They never manage to create enough fat reserves to hibernate like other bears because THEY ONLY EAT BAMBOO.
When it comes to having kids (and god knows how they ever get the energy to mate), bamboo also produces terrible milk - so their babies have a hell of a time surviving.
I mean .. WHAT? This looks like an evolutionary dead end, but how did they even get to this state in the first place?
Alternative question for the God Squad; is your deity of choice taking the piss with this animal?
trevor the sheep on 12/3/2006 at 23:09
It was probably living in an unchanging environment for many years that allowed them to fill that little niche. Now I don't know why they're finding it so damn hard, but it could simply be that the niche they adapted to isn't a very good one and so in the long term that means BAM - no more pandas. So it goes. Someone here has probably studied up on their panda shit though and will know their shit better than I know my shit.
When searching for 'panda evolution' i stumbled across this site: (
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/panda.html)
No hilarity ensued.
Jonesy on 12/3/2006 at 23:50
Oh, I disaggree, I find lines like
Quote:
These traits don't show us evolution. They show us that pandas are a unique creation of God — perfectly adapted for grasping and crunching bamboo as God the Creator intended for them.
filled with hilarity.
Gingerbread Man on 13/3/2006 at 00:50
Quote Posted by seethelightofgod, Yahoo! Message Boards
In the Beginning before the Fall, the world was without Sin.
No creature ate another creature.
After the Fall, animals began to eat one another.
One thing the scientists cannot explain is, why do sharks have big, flesh-eating teeth, if they were Designed for a world where animals did not eat each other????
I really don't expect an answer. That one will stump 99.9% of you.
Let that sink in a while. It's an archetypal Creationist argument on so many levels. Parsimony isn't one of their strong suits.
Aja on 13/3/2006 at 00:56
Well I was designed for living underwater, so why don't I have gills?
SD on 13/3/2006 at 01:17
Quote Posted by Aja
Well I was designed for living underwater, so why don't I have gills?
You sort of do, when you're an embryo (although they are non-functional gill slits, vestigial organs which appear in all vertebrates and are just one of countless pieces of evidence that we all share a common ancestry)
Inline Image:
http://www.lclark.edu/~seavey/genetics04/web%20images/embryo%20gills.jpgfett on 13/3/2006 at 04:27
Quote:
Its not like the Bible explicitaly states that God didn't use evolution and a big bang to create the universe and the life in it.
THANK YOU.
Uglyhead on 13/3/2006 at 09:48
I used to be one of those nearly-militant atheist goobs. "You believe in fairytales that are holding back the progress and well-being of humanity!" I would practically shout!
I've cooled down since then, after I realized I was acting like a bloody fundamentalist. Other people's spiritual lives aren't my concern anymore. Indeed, religions tend to have quite good values; must be why they've been so popular for so long.
The fact that there is still heated debate over evolution rubs me the wrong way, though. It's a sound theory, it makes sense, it isn't really disproving anybody's religion, except for those who cling to their rigid(and often literal) interpretations of their religious texts.
It's a business, isn't it? How much money can you make off of books and tapes which purport to disprove evolution, which can be hocked to people who are nearly brainwashed into obedience, which will be endorsed by their preachers, who they're supposed to trust?
