Hic Hic Hooray: Hiccups Explained

Anonymous Hero writes "Finally after millions of years (and zillions of hiccups) New Scientist gives us an explanation for this most annoying and least obvious of adaptations!"

Comments

Re:Millons?

[platypus]

So you believe the earth is just 7000 years old?

Re:Millons?

[esconsult1]

I do not think this attitude of "evolution is right" should be encouraged on slashdot.

I think the above statement undermined your entire position.

Re:Millons?

[Tyreth]

Close to 6000 but I do not know for certain.

Re:Millons?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only creationist arguments I have ever heard that weren't deeply seated in religion were really only arguments against evolution. Proving evolution as Darwin saw it wrong doesn't prove creation right. Evolution is a growing field that is continually changing and (without sounding punny) evolving. Creationism on the other hand is typically a statement of "facts" that are based on scripture and dogma.

Re:Millons?

[Tyreth]

Simple answer. For every time I have done that previously has ensued days or months long conversations that go in circles. Mostly, I think, because the person I am talking with does not understand the creationist position. However, I am unwilling to place the brunt of the blame on them. Needless to say, I don't like the wasted time. I'm going to save my discussion of this issue for in person where I can get to the heart of the matter quickly, and eliminate misunderstandings.

My goal here was not to pursuade anyone of my position, but instead ask them to think that the people they talk to about this issue are real people that can think, and are a part of the slashdot community - not some outsider.

Re:Millons?

[Tyreth]

I would suggest then that you have encountered only christians who have taken a cursory glance at the issue. I personally have seen a great deal of positive evidence supporting creationism, and not just arguments refuting evolution.

If you are curious there are plenty of resources available, but I'm not interested in walking in circles again.

Excellent Troll, My Friend

[Royster]

Unfortunately, Creationists are anti-rational.(some might say that they are ir-rational, but I won't go that far.)

THe problem with Creationism is that it isn't Science, it is Religion. It isn't Science because it can't be disproved.

Re:Excellent Troll, My Friend

[foistboinder]

THe problem with Creationism is that it isn't Science, it is Religion. It isn't Science because it can't be disproved

That's a bit simplistic (though not totally wrong). Creationism isn't science because the people involved do no actual science. Read some creationists articles and compare them to articles in real journals and compare what the authors actually do. You'll quickly see the difference.

Re:Excellent Troll, My Friend

[Tyreth]

I have tried pointing out many times that this is equally true of evolution. Science deals with things we can test. Origins fall outside that realm.

What we can test is the assumptions, the things we would expect to see given a certain explanation of the origins. And this is where science comes into play - both for creationism and evolution.

To explain...creationism describes the earth as being around 6000 years old now. The way to disprove this is clear then - demonstrate that the earth is older than 6000 years old. We are all familiar with the common methods to do this - radiocarbon dating, etc. These are all scientific methods being used to verify or disprove a philosophical/religious position.
Evolution is the same. Evolution says that the Cambrian age predates the Jurassic age. The way to disprove this is then to show a case where the Jurassic age predates the Cambrian age.

These are basic examples, but they suffice to show why science is employed by two opposing philosophical/religious positions. Science provides the evidence, and philosophy/religion ties it together and discusses how the pieces fit together.

Re: Excellent Troll, My Friend

[Black Parrot]

> I have tried pointing out many times that this is equally true of evolution. Science deals with things we can test. Origins fall outside that realm.

But theories of origins have their implications, and many of those implications can be tested.

> To explain...creationism describes the earth as being around 6000 years old now. The way to disprove this is clear then - demonstrate that the earth is older than 6000 years old.

Dewd, that was done 40 years before Darwin went to press.

Re:Millons?

[Tyreth]

http://www.xenu.net/

Re: Millons?

[Black Parrot]

> There are many slashdotters who believe this and can argue quite coherently against evolutionists.

If that's the case, why do we always hear the same old schlock instead of those coherent arguments?

> Use logic, reason, arguments.

Add "evidence" to that recipe and you'll understand why most of us reject mythomagical explanations of how the universe works.

> Creationists understand and agree with natural selection.

Actually, some do, some don't. Some, usually called "theistic evolutionists", don't even deny evolution.

> I do not think this attitude of "evolution is right" should be encouraged on slashdot.

Let's instead encourage looking at the facts, and we'll get the same result.

> All I'm asking is that we change this culture and start to respect opinions of each other.

Even when those opinions are demonstrably idiotic?

Re:Millons?

[Scarblac]

I feel compelled to reply to this troll. Why do you have to make comments like this? There are many slashdotters who believe this and can argue quite coherently against evolutionists. I personally have not yet met a single evolutionist who _understands_ the creationist position. Especially on slashdot.

Indeed, I do not. I have never seen any evidence for Creationism. I just cannot take it seriously at all. Remember, shooting holes in "Evolution Theory" is not evidence for Creationism. It's not an either/or question, not a zero sum game. Just that some parts of evolution aren't yet understood well doesn't mean there is any evidence for Creationism.

Re: Millons?

[Black Parrot]

> I personally have seen a great deal of positive evidence supporting creationism, and not just arguments refuting evolution.

OK, list your 10 best bits of evidence.

Or your best 3, if you prefer.

Or even just 1, if you'd like.

Re:Millons?

[slntnsnty]

Articles

Re:Millons?

[two_ply]

I strongly agree with your sentiments that people should be more tolerant and considerant )especially when it comes to religious beliefs.

There is however a large discrepancy between belief in creationism and evolutionary creationism. One belief states that the world and the human race is 10 000 years old (give or take) , and that both were willed into existance by God. The other states that world is several billion years old, and humans evolved from monkeys through mechanisms and in a universe willed into existance by God.

No one is going to change their mind on this issue because of a post on Slashdot, and I'm not trying to argue one side over the other. Just pointing out that this *is* a tech oriented community, so people are more likely to emphasize the emperical and quantifiable. While the debate on evolutionary creationism has factors which land strongly in the unknowable (ie is there a God?), creationism has some fairly strong evidence to the contrary (dinosaurs).

Regardless, I don't think it's worth getting *angry* about either way... personally that's always been one of my biggest problems with fundamantalists: if they know in their heart of hearts that they're right, why do they get *so* worked up if someone starts asking questions? I mean.. I think I'd have a hard time getting someone red in the face by refusing to believe in gravity...

Re: Millons?

[Black Parrot]

> I have to agree. I love that fact that on slashdot, everyone is all about respecting opinions of others,

Oh, please. On Slashdot you can get flamed for saying you're on Slashdot.

Re:Millons?

[blinder]

actually I would say that the fanatics only make up a tiny percentage of those who consider themselves religious... its just the fanatics are the loudest and they capture the attention, while the normal, peaceful "live and let live" religious people are quiet and don't need to raise a fuss to proclaim their faith.

But... most people are too lazy or just don't want to accept this fact and say things like 95% of the world are "self-righteous" and "religious fanatics."

A shame really.

Re: Dumb Fuck

[Black Parrot]

> Would you respect the opinion of someone that claimed the tooth-fairy created earth 38 minutes ago?

Hey, it's Thursday isn't it?

Re: Millons?

[Tyreth]

I've already stated my purpose. The moment I post a link or an evidence, I will enter into a circle again.

Besides, I've argued with you before, I still remember you. I remember being very frustrated at you failing to listen to what I was saying. No way I want to do that again.

Re:Millons?

[Tyreth]

Just as a note, I avoid that hyperspace button except in cases where it is rational to assume. Eg, such as saying the floodwaters came up miraculously because that's what the Bible describes and that's where the Creationist model comes from.

Anyway, it's no different from the "We're talking about millions of years" portal. As Fry said (Futurama), "Time makes fools of us all."

Re:Millons?

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Your behaviour is puzzling. You immediately post a link to a site that bashes Scientology, but seem very reluctant to post anything that would describe and support rational creationism. This sounds suspicious. Basically, what you say amounts to: "I am no mystic, I have solid facts and experiments to support my beliefs; but you'll have to take my word for this since I have no time and you are too dumb".

Actually, you're achieving the exact opposing goal. I think ANY rational person has mental alarms ringing all over as soon as he identifies this pattern. So your choice is simple. Either you describe and support your views, or you lose all credibility.

Re: Millons?

[Black Parrot]

> actually I would say that the fanatics only make up a tiny percentage of those who consider themselves religious... its just the fanatics are the loudest and they capture the attention, while the normal, peaceful "live and let live" religious people are quiet and don't need to raise a fuss to proclaim their faith.

You got that right. Some of my favorite people are fundamentalists. Curiously, they aren't trying to have mythology taught in science class.

Re:Millons?

[Goth Biker Babe]

Evolution is only a theory. The definition of the word theory includes:
"the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"
and
"applausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"

So the problem with creationism include the following: Where are the facts. The Bible can not be stated as a fact as it is written by man. The moment you accept it as the Word of God then you have brough religion in to the frame. The plausibility is in doubt. The moment you bring in a supreme creator laying down dinosaur bones to test us religion rears it's ugly head again. Also using occams razon what's more likely that nearly every science known to man is wrong in some way or another (Physics, Geology, Zoology, Anthropology etc.) or the World really is millions of years old. Many people make the mistake of concentrating on evolution alone but there are many many theories which set the age of the Earth.

Its not bigotry that sets me against creationism merely an appraisal of the facts and their plausibility. Creationism just doesn't stand up scientifically. I am a Pagan by the way and so not totally against religion/faith.

Re: Millons?

[Black Parrot]

> Besides, I've argued with you before, I still remember you.

Yes, I remember pointing out the folly of your arguments in the past as well.

> I remember being very frustrated at you failing to listen to what I was saying. No way I want to do that again.

Co-out noted, though I give you credit for being wise enough not to expose the bankruptcy of your beliefs again.

Re:Millons?

[miltimj]

One belief states that the world and the human race is 10 000 years old (give or take) , and that both were willed into existance by God. The other states that world is several billion years old.. This is not necessarily true -- there are plenty of creationists who believe the earth is several billion years old (me included). The difference being what the word "day" means in the book of Genesis. Original Hebrew can show it to mean "period of time". Similarly, the Bible says to God "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day" (i.e. human's time is mostly incomparable to God's time) Ergo, the 6 days God took to create the earth was actually a lot longer.