Evolução

[Dehumanizer]

Vi isto no www.kuro5hin.org, numa discussão, e achei piada.

1. we evolved from monkeys
2. monkeys live in social groups dominated by an alpha male
3. fear and respect of the alpha male became a deeply embedded element of monkey psychology in monkey genes, or else if you went up to the alpha male and stuck your tongue out at him or threw your feces at him you were smacked off the tree by the alpha male and eaten by the stegodonts or trilobytes below and your genes would disappear
4. many years later, we evolved from monkeys but we still had some vestigal monkey psychology left in our brains, like toes on a foot (seriously, how can a creationist look at a human foot and not see evolution in action? it is "intelligent" to design a foot with TOES on it?! how farking useless are toes!)
5. proof of the vestigal monkey psychology is that some humans still need to believe in the UAM- the ultimate alpha male, aka god, or yahweh, or allah... that even if no alpha male is around, the deeply embedded fear and respect of the alpha male in their genes forces some people to conjure him out of their imagination to explain their monkey-like urges to tremble before the alpha male
6. to such humans, the idea that life can evolve without the guidance of a UAM is a deeply troubling thought, much like the serpent in the tree in the night while the monkeys sleep
7. therefore, evolution is proven by the existence of creationists: their deeply embedded monkey psychology derived need for belief in a UAM is direct evidence that we evolved from monkeys

[Dehumanizer]

OK, so let's assume for the sake of argument that an intelligent entity created Earth and humans in his image. Let's be concrete and say it was a bunch of Vogons in their huge spacecraft, and they zapped together a planet around this sun about six thousand years ago.

That's perhaps not the kind of image ID proponents have in mind, but it illustrates the point: why would such beings have any kind of moral authority? Why would we have any special relationship with such beings? Why would we assume that they are even still around?

According to the Bible, the Christian God has committed murder, genocide, torture, infanticide, and commanded others to do those things on his behalf; he is vengeful, prone to anger, unpredictable, and can be unforgiving. Why does such an entity deserve our respect and admiration? You can, of course, say that you buckle under because otherwise you'll be eternally punished, but that's an amoral, pragmatic decision driven by fear of pain and punishment.

Many scientists would find the idea of man being created by extraterrestrials fascinating. Unfortunately, the closest we have gotten to that is panspermia.

Intelligent design arguments are not about intelligent design; if science actually identified an intelligent entity responsible for the creation of man, earth, or the universe, they'd denounce that as materialistic just as much as they denounce current science as materialistic. What this is really about is power: churches are losing power to science, and people who can't cut it in the sciences (most people) don't like it.

[Dehumanizer]

A third argument for Intelligent Design is the so-called "Fined-Tuned Universe" argument. If certain physical constants were different, life would not exist, it is argued. For example:

If the strong nuclear force were to have been as little as 2% stronger (relative to the other forces), all hydrogen would have been converted into helium. If it were 5% weaker, no helium at all would have formed and there would be nothing but hydrogen. If the weak nuclear force were a little stronger, supernovas could not occur, and heavy elements could not have formed. If it were slightly weaker, only helium might have formed. If the electromagnetic forces were stronger, all stars would be red dwarfs, and there would be no planets. If it were a little weaker, all stars would be very hot and short-lived. If the electron charge were ever so slightly different, there would be no chemistry as we know it. Carbon (12C) only just managed to form in the primal nucleosynthesis. And so on." (McMullin 378)

If one were to go fishing and catch 50 fish, all of which were more than ten inches long, one might reasonably make the hypothesis that all of the fish in the lake are more than ten inches long. Someone else might make another hypothesis, that only half the fish in the lake are more than ten inches long. It seems obvious that the first hypothesis is more likely. But what if, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the net being used to catch the fish had holes that prevented it from catching fish smaller than ten inches, and that the fisherman left it in the water until it had caught 50 fish? This new information must now be incorporated into the hypothesis, causing both to have a likelihood of one, thus preventing one from being more likely than the other.

This situation can be directly applied to the fine-tuned universe argument. It may seem on the surface that the likelihood of a universe in which all of the constants are right for life given an intelligent designer is much higher than the likelihood that the constants are right given random chance. When we add in the fact that we are here to observe the universe, however, we find that the likelihood of a fine-tuned universe is one either way. If we are here we must be in a universe which is tuned to our existence. The likelihood of a fine-tuned universe given that there is an intelligent designer and that we live in a fine tuned universe is equal to the likelihood that we live in a fined tuned universe given that it was created by random chance and that we live in a fine-tuned universe.

Pr(Fine-Tuned Universe | Intelligent Design & Fine-Tuned Universe) = Pr(Fine-Tuned Universe | Chance & Fine-Tuned Universe) = 1

This is to say that since we are here we must live in a universe fine-tuned to our existence regardless of whether that universe was created by an intelligent designer or by random chance. Therefore, the fine-tuned universe argument does not, in the final analysis, promote either intelligent design or chance (Sober).

[Rufferto]

Está muito bem escrito, realmente. E sim, os dedos dos pés não servem para nada.

[Cobaia]

Inteligent design!
Isto e a inqusicao sao daquelas coisas que me provocam arrepios na espinha.

[Rufferto]

Inteligent design!
Isto e a inqusicao sao daquelas coisas que me provocam arrepios na espinha.

Havias de experimentar ser Benfiquista para veres o que são arrepios na espinha...

[Dehumanizer]

Vá lá, não desvies o tema.

Aliás, podia dizer que ser benfiquista (ou de qualquer outro clube) também é uma prova de que ainda temos uma necessidade simiesca de pertencer a algum grupo, mesmo que isso não nos afecte nas nossas vidas nem nos traga nenhum benefício...

[Rufferto]

Ou isso, ou uma pessoa gosta de futebol. Mas sim, já nos estamos a afastar do tema...

[Kanzentai]

Para haver um todo, têm que haver partes. E, embora o todo seja mais que a soma das partes (as peças de um puzzle têm que ser dispostas de certa maneira, não podem ser apenas amontoadas), têm sempre que haver partes... pena que haja quem não as saiba enquadrar no ponto de vista certo mas são humanos, pronto...

[Rufferto]

as peças de um puzzle têm que ser dispostas de certa maneira, não podem ser apenas amontoadas

Não da maneira como o Homer Simpson os faz. :p

[Kanzentai]

mas aí não obténs o todo