• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This Should Silence Atheists Who Believe In Blind Evolution

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dighn said:
Or set this entire universe into motion with all its laws fine tuned for life. But no, it goes against the words of the Bible, which supposedly speaks for the hypothetical Creator. Such arrogance.
Click to expand...

Who better to read the mind of a god then a mortal right?
 
lol..it is not all perfect..

all kinds of shit happens that makes things go "wrong"

i just finished the genetics section of biology (next quarter is evolution) (college)
 
dighn said:
Or set this entire universe into motion with all its laws fine tuned for life. But no, it goes against the words of the Bible, which supposedly speaks for the hypothetical Creator. Such arrogance.
Click to expand...

What exactly goes against the words of the bible?
 
tenshodo13 said:
In the time it would take for a hydraulics augmented drill press with a diamond tip forged by the very blood of the artisans that created it to drill through your skull to deliver an enema of knowledge, a single worm could evolve into a galactic civilization powerful enough to transcend the mortal coil and destroy the higher beings of the universe, twice.
Click to expand...

:awe:
 
It has not been demonstrated that life began at all. For that matter, we're not really sure what "life" is. We call certain things "alive," and we call other things "dead," but the lines we draw between them are basically arbitrary and only drawn out of pragmatism.

Personally, I'm a panpsychist. I do not believe that there is such a thing as "dead" matter, or matter without consciousness.
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
It has not been demonstrated that life began at all. For that matter, we're not really sure what "life" is. We call certain things "alive," and we call other things "dead," but the lines we draw between them are basically arbitrary and only drawn out of pragmatism.

Personally, I'm a panpsychist. I do not believe that there is such a thing as "dead" matter, or matter without consciousness.
Click to expand...

That's crazy, I do believe in "dead" matter, but I believe there is much "live" matter in some sense everywhere.

I also don't mean "that's crazy" as in "you're fucking insane and need medication", just I have never really thought of it like that.
 
bfdd said:
That's crazy, I do believe in "dead" matter, but I believe there is much "live" matter in some sense everywhere.

I also don't mean "that's crazy" as in "you're fucking insane and need medication", just I have never really thought of it like that.
Click to expand...
I know it's pretty preposterous on its face. I've carefully considered it, however, and I do believe it is true. I don't purport to have any type of evidence or arguments that should necessarily convince anyone else, though.
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
I know it's pretty preposterous on its face. I've carefully considered it, however, and I do believe it is true. I don't purport to have any type of evidence or arguments that should necessarily convince anyone else, though.
Click to expand...

Well it makes sense in the fact that all matter could potentially be re-arranged in a way to represent what we view as life. I don't know, the universe is so fucking huge it's hard to fathom some things.
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
I know it's pretty preposterous on its face. I've carefully considered it, however, and I do believe it is true. I don't purport to have any type of evidence or arguments that should necessarily convince anyone else, though.
Click to expand...

While I can't argue that I understand what it is you describe, I will add this: the definition of life is quite intriguing in some ways. Many scholars state that viruses are not technically life, and I find that to be quite hysterically inaccurate. I do not have the credentials to truly argue one case or the other, but viruses are quite the awe-inspiring little shits when you take all of biological matter into perspective. I mean, they seem to simply exist to cause as much damage to the animal way of life as possible. And their methods of operation are ludicrous; they swap and combine strands of DNA, and only do so to further their chance at wrecking havoc amongst the animal kingdom.
 
destrekor said:
While I can't argue that I understand what it is you describe, I will add this: the definition of life is quite intriguing in some ways. Many scholars state that viruses are not technically life, and I find that to be quite hysterically inaccurate. I do not have the credentials to truly argue one case or the other, but viruses are quite the awe-inspiring little shits when you take all of biological matter into perspective. I mean, they seem to simply exist to cause as much damage to the animal way of life as possible. And their methods of operation are ludicrous; they swap and combine strands of DNA, and only do so to further their chance at wrecking havoc amongst the animal kingdom.
Click to expand...

Ah, Virus vs. Life is the true debate, but how many people really care to highlight it? It's much more fun to pretend we either came from monkeys or came from God.
 
Brigandier said:
Ah, Virus vs. Life is the true debate, but how many people really care to highlight it? It's much more fun to pretend we either came from monkeys or came from God.
Click to expand...

Well there's no pretending in that case, it's one or the other.
And note, it's most certainly not the latter. 😉

But regardless of origins, viruses are still the little bastards of the circle of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top