|
Post by worlder on Nov 22, 2010 1:05:30 GMT -5
The number one thing for a Christian to be offended of in Futurama is the episode that parodies Creationism. Ah Panspermia, such good material for sci-fi stories.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 22, 2010 16:02:04 GMT -5
The number one thing for a Christian to be offended of in Futurama is the episode that parodies Creationism. Ah Panspermia, such good material for sci-fi stories. Panspermia? What?
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Nov 22, 2010 16:21:23 GMT -5
Ah Panspermia, such good material for sci-fi stories. Panspermia? What? Panspermia, the theory that primitive life hitched a ride on an asteroid or meteor and landed on the Earth. Thus that's how life on Earth started. Not sure what evidence backs that up though.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 22, 2010 18:42:41 GMT -5
About the same amount of evidence that backs any other theory for the origin of life on Earth: It's theoretically possible.
|
|
|
Post by godlesspanther on Nov 22, 2010 19:56:39 GMT -5
About the same amount of evidence that backs any other theory for the origin of life on Earth: It's theoretically possible. And much higher probability than a story-book character deciding to make everything in six days. And more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 22, 2010 20:25:43 GMT -5
About the same amount of evidence that backs any other theory for the origin of life on Earth: It's theoretically possible. And much higher probability than a story-book character deciding to make everything in six days. And more interesting. I said, "Theory," not, "Fairy tale."
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 22, 2010 20:39:22 GMT -5
About the same amount of evidence that backs any other theory for the origin of life on Earth: It's theoretically possible. RNA world has a bit more, it actually explains some of the chemistry of things like ribosomes and snRNPs and such.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 22, 2010 21:10:32 GMT -5
About the same amount of evidence that backs any other theory for the origin of life on Earth: It's theoretically possible. RNA world has a bit more, it actually explains some of the chemistry of things like ribosomes and snRNPs and such. Go on.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 22, 2010 22:45:00 GMT -5
Back at the turn of the century the Pokemon and Harry Potter crazes were at their heights and countless fundiriffic articles attacking them were only a quick search away. And they weren't the only children's franchises under fire: often Dragonball, Magic the Gathering, Dungeons and Dragons, and occasionally (for the particularly out-of-touch) He-Man were covered. But now... all this seems to have gone. Fundies don't seem to be attacking kids' media anywhere enar as much. Anyone else notice this, or is it just me? Is it because they've been ridiculed so much that they've dropped the tactic? Is there simply a lack of major occult-themed franchises (Ben 10 seems to be the biggest kids' show right now, and it's science fiction)? I kind of miss the good old days of sites like Demonbuster advocating the burning of children's toys, and Cuttingedge.org's hilarious analyses of Harry Potter. Fundies have ADD
|
|
|
Post by godlesspanther on Nov 22, 2010 22:51:23 GMT -5
Bill Shcnoebelen sets the record straight when it comes to Harry Potter. "First of all, part of the problem is that witches and magicians do exist. They DO cast spells and read crystal balls. A few even work on the discipline of lycanthropy[2] — shape-shifting into animals. Thus, there is nothing fictitious about any of this, except in the minds of head-in-the-sand Christians."Here is the whole article: educate-yourself.org/mc/straighttalkonharrypotter30jan04.shtml
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 22, 2010 22:52:21 GMT -5
I'm saying this as someone who has gone back and watched a number of cartoons from when I was growing up recently. New cartoons suck. Most of them are mindless, inoffensive, unfunny and seem to serve no purpose other than flash colors at children to keep them sitting in front of the TV. There's not a whole lot for fundies not to like, all the fun has been sucked out of them. Though I am surprised we don't hear more about Avatar, or has that ended now? Perfectly said. Comparing new cartoons to the old GI JOE, Thundercats shows i used to watch, the new ones really have little in the way of art or style. I've noticed for some time that Disney censored many of it's old classic cartoons to prevent people from seeing violence like Donald getting hit with a stick, and most of his spazzes were censored in turn. Now the shows make no sense
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 22, 2010 23:01:20 GMT -5
RNA world has a bit more, it actually explains some of the chemistry of things like ribosomes and snRNPs and such. Go on. These use RNA to catalyze reactions, most biochemical catalysts are purely proteins. They are also more common for basal systems (like with ribosomes). An RNA based origin explains why there are a handful of RNA catalysts. This is something that wouldn't happen with, say, a protein origin.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 22, 2010 23:28:54 GMT -5
If I have this right, you're saying that there are a few biological compounds that use RNA to do the shit they're supposed to do. However, most compounds are proteins, but you wouldn't expect this if life started out protein-based.
Why would you not expect that? It seems fairly logical to me. "Most compounds are proteins, so life probably started out as proteins." Does it have something to do with how Fundies are always citing that DNA can't code for itself?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 23, 2010 10:52:45 GMT -5
If I have this right, you're saying that there are a few biological compounds that use RNA to do the shit they're supposed to do. However, most compounds are proteins, but you wouldn't expect this if life started out protein-based. Why would you not expect that? It seems fairly logical to me. "Most compounds are proteins, so life probably started out as proteins." Does it have something to do with how Fundies are always citing that DNA can't code for itself? If life started out only with proteins and no nucleic acid, there would be no reason why a nucleic acid is doing to work of proteins. Proteins do the job better, which is why they are there, but the RNA catalysts are a remnant of the past, and it is very telling that they are found in basal systems, not anything close to recent, by basal, I mean so old that they are in every damn organism. If life started out with only proteins and incorporated a nucleic acid later, why is the nucleic acid doing the job of protein? I'd expect to see little bits of protein holding genetic information instead, because the first biomolecule would have to be able to do every task necessary. RNA is the only thing in all lifeforms which can do this. DNA can't, it needs other molecules to replicate and isn't involved in any reaction, proteins can't, they degrade too fast and don't hold any hereditary information. But, RNA can self replicate and it can be used to metabolize. And I don't know what you're talking about when you say DNA can't code for itself, there is the whole DNA replication thing. Don't learn science from fundies, they talk about weird shit that has nothing to do with anything.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 23, 2010 20:13:14 GMT -5
As I understand it, DNA is replicated by RNA, which is what I believe they're getting at.
|
|