• phorq@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      Español
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Just find and replace the name “Allah” with “God” and nobody would notice.

  • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    6 months ago

    Feels the author knew he was writing bullshit and tried to actually sneak the truth in, in a way that’s undetectable to the extremists vetting the thing.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 months ago

    Oh, look; it’s more conflating of evolution with abiogenesis, alongside complete shortsightedness about the scales of space and time involved.

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    My favorite thing about the “even humans can’t make life” argument is that when you point out that we have actually made the kind of rudimentary precursors to life in laboratories, they just say “see? It needs an intelligent mind to make it!”

    • HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      And my least favourite thing about it is it assumes that somehow science is finished and therefore capable of everything possible.

    • bored_runaway@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh? I’ve seen several similar claims in media that always, on closer look, ended up as some combination of already organic/live parts with synthetic parts. Did we ever managed to make somehing “alive” strictly from something synthetic/dead?

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I am talking about the Miller-Urey experiment. They didn’t create life, but in the words of Forrest Valkai, we have steps 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 100 for abiogenesis. Creationists right now like to say “haha, you don’t have step 3!” But when we do reach step 3, they’ll still be able to point to 6, 7, 8, 9, and so on. And when we do reach all those steps, creationists will pivot, and say “haha! You admit that life was intelligently designed!” As if the laboratory conditions that scientists use aren’t simulating the mineral and nutrient rich conditions of the pre-life oceans, and as if there weren’t billions of cubic meters of water for it to randomly happen in over hundreds of millions of years

        • bored_runaway@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m not familiar with experiment and I certainly don’t subscribe to any creationist logic. But until science can create life from death (a proof that we understand it well enough) we can’t really claim much about it or eliminate intelligent desing, however unprobable it seemed. And as far as I know, currently there isn’t even consensus on definition of life.

      • User_4272894@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        The chapter is titled “evolution” and the fact that we’re on figure 24.16 leads me to believe there are at least fifteen other images in this chapter. If that’s the case, it seems unlikely this section would be so far back in the chapter.

        The section above literally talks about the results of natural selection on speciation.

        When comparing content between the two sections, the top had lots of scientific vocabulary and creates valid points. The below section has multiple misspelled words and bad grammar. Tonally, very different.

        Most obviously, the line spacing in this section is about half what it is in the above section.

        • Lojcs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Idk… In Turkey natural selection and speciation are in the curriculum but as far as I can tell it’s forbidden to mention evolution. Doesn’t seem like a large jump of logic to include a “btw evolution is wrong” section.

          Also the line spacing on the right page seems closer to the bottom section.

  • sramder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 months ago

    I like that apricots and figs are clearly appreciated as higher forms of life than starfish and hawks. 

  • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    This was hard to read for many reasons, including the run-on sentences and poor grammar. My favorite parts, however, were probably these excerpts:

    • “cannot be the result of chance vents”
    • “Primal soup”
    • “Loins”
  • Artyom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    My favorite part is that the first paragraph presents an example of evolution, and then the second paragraph said “evolution is bullshit.” They probably took a preexisting evolution-believing textbook and squeezed in a paragraph here and there, but they can’t keep the book self-consistent.

    A classic case of proof by contradiction.