WORLD—The consensus is in: scientists from around the globe have confirmed that the Apple iPhone was not designed, but rather evolved naturally over billions of years.
The origins of the complex device have been the subject of scientific debate for many years, but Thursday’s announcement puts to bed any doubt that the early ancestors of the iPhone spontaneously generated in a swamp some 4.6 billion years ago.
“The current theory is that a small, single-cell pager device was formed from electronic parts floating in the ocean,” Dr. Rashad Shami of Harvard University told reporters. “The pager then figured out how to reproduce, and natural selection took care of the rest.”
Scientists also confirmed that anyone who believes that some mythical being named “Steve Jobs” may have had a hand in creating the iPhone is “deluded.”
“While the iPhone may have the appearance of design, and, yes, an Apple logo on the back, we assure you, these are happy accidents and not the result of intelligent designers creating the device,” Shami said. “The obvious answer to the origin of the highly complex smartphone is that it created itself ex nihilo.”
How dare you Paul! This apple iphone evolved from a banana and it shares its 3.5% genetics from a turnip.
And theory tell us it’s evolved from version 2 to 3s to 5 and many stages to the latest 8 or 9 with a 360 camera lens. “Science” proves this evolution from the Bronze Age and Ice Age.
Where is the proof of this imaginary Steve Jobs?
OK then theists now believe Steve Jobs invented/designed electrical telegraphy in 18th century. No surprise.
The iPhone did evolve over the evolution of the human brain and increased capacity for understanding science—Unlike beliefs which are worthless and divisive. Your sandcastles on the beach argument is the epitome of weak.
Muh i can’t see evidence with my eyes https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/anderson-anthony-c-22some-emendations-of-gc3b6dels-ontological-proof22.pdf (this is Anthony’s emandation of Godel’s FORMAL ontological proof that doesn’t have – provably – one of its flaws which is modal collapse)
But yeah go on and refuse to accept even this one because muuuh “rationality”
13 pages of gibberish that is all based on the proposition that god is good. Tell that to the priests of Baal who were slaughtered after keeping a bargain with your faith. Can you show me an instance where god (those in power, the writers) were good, or anything to do with common decency by a superior humanist standard. Your article does prove how far and ridiculous people will stretch unreason to prove they’re right—over a belief that has no substance and a philosophy they have been led to believe is good, but can’t find the integrity to just admit they’ve been fooled
It’s a common misconception among most atheists and a few religious people too that science is some kind of rival to religion. The truth is that the vast majority of scientific advancements and the biggest breakthroughs in the history of science to the current era mostly came from religious scientists or scientists who believe in some supreme force above humans.
Therefore worth pointing to some of these types of atheists and others etc to just cut the usual crap that “scientific advancement” is somehow a point scored against the religious people. Whether you make that point or along those lines. To those types of people, It doesn’t make you look wiser (as you think it does) it just makes you look typically ignorant of what we usually find in our modern environments.
Thanks your analogy justifies polytheism hihi.
Thanks. Your comment justifies saying you are as dumb as a doorknob.