Morte aos golfinhos. Volto a dizer, morte aos golfinhos! Esses malandros qualquer dia fazem uma revolução e tomam conta do mundo.
Nem por isso. É mais por causa de emails como este:
"Usa uns instantes do teu tempo para te juntares a este protesto...
Como se ja nao chegasse os imbecis dos japoneses caçarem as baleias quase ate a extinçao para fins "cientificos" agr tambem estao a massacrar golfinhos! clica no link e subescreve-te
p.s.
(Se tens por custume repassar emails estupidos por causa da ameaça
de que se nao o repassarem a 6 bilioes de pessoas em 3 octagesimos de segundos fikas estupido(a), cego(a), apanhas o cai-cai e transformas- te num copinho de leite
fika a saber que um jovem na tailandia nao repassou este mail nem se subscreveu, foi atropelado por uma betoneira... duas vezes, caiu num poço cheio de piranhas e depois um aviao despenhou-se em cima dele!... nao queiras que te aconteça o mesmo!!! ) :P"
Oh sim, deixem-me ser desmembrado, castrado, atropelado por uma manada de búfalos e catapultado para um poço de merda onde em seguida irei afogar-me lentamente! Mas puta que pariu estes emails da merda! Oh que caralho, morram as putas dos golfinhos! Foda-se!
E recebi um mail muito interessante: criacionistas desprovam a teoria da evolução!
Dei-me ao trabalho de comentar parte para vosso gozo:
Morality and ethical standards have been greatly reduced. Children and youth are taught in school that they are an advanced level of animals; there are no moral principles. Since they are just animals, they should do whatever they want. Personal survival and success will come only by rivalry, strife, and stepping on others.Oh really? I don't remember learning any of that. I guess if you're retarded you might conclude that...
Prior to the middle of the 1800s, scientists were researchers who firmly believed that all nature was made by a Master Designer. Those pioneers who laid the foundations of modern science were creationists. They were men of giant intellect who struggled against great odds in carrying on their work. They were hard-working researchers.BIAS, BIAS, BIAS. Creationists were HARD-WORKING people unlike today's scientists...
Carl Linn (Carolus Linnaeus , 1707-1778) was a scientist who classified immense numbers of living organisms. An earnest creationist, he clearly saw that there were no halfway species. All plant and animal species were definite categories, separate from one another. Variation was possible within a species, and there were many sub-species. But there were no cross-overs from one species to another (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 276).Definitions are relative. Saying something is a definite category or a crossover depends on what YOU understand as those words meaning.
Explain the existence of crossover species (genetic manipulation exists and is done daily; while for years people have been mixing the so called separate species of plants, getting interesting results still used today).
First Law of Thermodynamics (1847). Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the law of conservation of energy : The sum total of all matter will always remain the same. This law refutes several aspects of evolutionary theory.Whoa, my brain just imploded!!! "This law refutes several aspects of evolutionary theory." Care to explain? Looks like random rubish to me.
When you state something, you prove it too.
Hey, my dog can fly. DISPROVE THAT, BITCH!
Second Law of Thermodynamics (1850). R.J.E. Clausius stated the law of entropy: All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized (*Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, 1968, p. 201). In other words, everything runs down, wears out, and goes to pieces (*R.R. Kindsay, "Physics: to What Extent is it Deterministic," American Scientist 56, 1968, p. 100). This law totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex."In other words, everything runs down, wears out, and goes to pieces" - nice interpretation. Random and disorganized does NOT mean running down, wearing out or going to pieces. Actually, it does a really nice job of supporting basic evolutionary theory.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a creationist who lived and worked near Brunn (now Brno), Czechoslovakia. He was a science and math teacher. Unlike the theorists, Mendel was a true scientist. He bred garden peas and studied the results of crossing various varieties. Beginning his work in 1856, he concluded it within eight years. In 1865, he reported his research in the Journal of the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science. The journal was distributed to 120 libraries in Europe, England, and America. Yet his research was totally ignored by the scientific community until it was rediscovered in 1900 (*R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel's Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936). His experiments clearly showed that one species could not transmute into another one. A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. Mendel's work laid the basis for modern genetics, and his discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for species evolution (*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64).LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!
Yes, it's true that people always have had a hard time believing new stuff. How many scientists weren't burnt for saying stupid things like the earth goes around the sun...
"His experiments clearly showed that one species could not transmute into another one." - ah yes, and this is scientifically acknowledged. "and his discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for species evolution" - how, may I ask? Since when has evolution defended TRANSMUTATION? It's EVOLUTION, something that takes a lot of time and not a pea that suddenly turns itself into a pear...
Maybe someone is watching too much transformers.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was another genuine scientist. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment, in which he disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Life cannot arise from non-living materials. This experiment was very important; for, up to that time, a majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. (They thought that if a pile of old clothes were left in a corner, it would breed mice! The proof was that, upon later returning to the clothes, mice would frequently be found there.) Pasteur concluded from his experiment that only God could create living creatures. But modern evolutionary theory continues to be based on the out-dated theory disproved by Pasteur: spontaneous generation (life arises from non-life). Why? Because it is the only real basis on which evolution could occur. As *Adams notes, "With spontaneous generation discredited [by Pasteur], biologists were left with no theory of the origin of life at all"I firmly remember learning in science classes that spontaneous generation has been scientifically discredited and is not a basis of evolution.
"biologists were left with no theory of the origin of life at all" - except they do have a theory of origin of life. Quick! Get a science book on the subject and educate yourself!
August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) was a German biologist who disproved *Lamarck's notion of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." He is primarily remembered as the scientist who cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. His discoveries, along with the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin, doomed the theory (*Jean Rostand, Orion Book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Yet Lamarckism continues today as the disguised basis of evolutionary biology. For example, evolutionists still teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to reach higher branches, so their necks became longer!There's a difference between the meddling of man in species and the "meddling" of nature. Something printed into our (or a specie's) genertics is not something you can change physically or manually. I see this Leopold Weismann fellow as a sadic having the time of his life amputating animals. I can't see how he doomed the Lamarckism theory.
I can agree that the definition of Lamarckism is wrong, or that the whole concept is poorly explained. Maybe a better example for the giraffe is that since it was a tall animal, it started taking advantage of this height to reach higher branches leading to, through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, longer necks.
Basicamente o email é só pérolas, ainda que levante algumas questões difíceis de responder.
O email continua, e vou resumir o meu comentário ao resto:
TOO LONG, DIDN'T READ.Se tiverem interessados neste email, eu envio.
