HMS Beagle (Possibly) Found

With the Beagle 2 lander lost on Mars, good Beagle-related news has been lacking, until now. British paper The Observer is reporting that the original HMS Beagle, the ship Darwin travelled on during his famous voyage, may have been found. Marine archeologists believe they have found the ship, which has been resting at the bottom of some Essex marshes for the last century.

Comments

And this means what?

[jwthompson2]

Other than the historical value and the renewed hope that if we can find one beagle we can find another what will this mean? I have never been a fan of evolution as a Christian but find much of Darwin's work interesting. Are there any new discoveries we might make about him or his work from this (possible) find?

Re:And this means what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You liberal. You spineless hippie. Come up here and face me, you amoral, pro-abortion, anti-war feminist pile of
fetid shit. What the fuck do you think you're doing? You Marxist. You Pinko Commie. You people make me sick.
God created hell for a reason, so subhuman liberal scum like you could get painfully sodomized in the asshole by
demons for your fucking arrogance.

Re:And this means what?

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

In my experience, people do not rely on evidence for creation, they rely on faith. I can however, tell you that the evidence for evolution is quite sketchy. And the theory of evolution certainly isn't proven.

The list is pretty long, but for starters, the dating methods universally used for all evolutionary theories are crap. If one rock is sent to be radiometrically dated using three different methods, you'd be lucky to have the results all come back withing 10 million years of each other. And you might have a span of more than 100 million years if you're unlucky.

Skeletons != proof
skeletons with similarities to other skeletons are not proof of evolution. They seem like it at first. But without making a direct connection (which cannot be done without actually observing the process) the skeleton/fossil proof is just speculation.

Furthermore, many of the skeletons found were hyped to be something spectacular, and later found to be not so spectacular. The missing link fossils have all (to my knowledge) been proven false. They were either completely human or completely monkey. One of them was even a mixture of human bones and monkey bones, that, when reconstructed, looked a lot like a half-man-half-monkey!

I could go on. But the point is, the "science proves the theory of evolution" statement is not accurate. I would be happy to answer any questions or continue this list.

Re:And this means what?

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

I don't think things are all so clear cut as you make them sound.

You could rewrite your sentence

"I have found the theory of creation lacking for scientific reasons. It is a fascinating idea, but far from proven."

I agree totally. Both viewpoints require a substantial amount of faith and a beleif system that cannot be proven.

Evolution predicts certain things, and these seem to be accurate, so it's the best model we have at the moment.

The theory of evolution doesn't predict anything. It is a reactionary "theory" in which we look at an outcome and guess the process. Since the process we guessed arrives at the outcome we observe, we assume it is correct. This is not prediction!

Don't confuse science with scientism.
You are absolutely correct. I am a scientist myself and have nothing against the process. Many of the comments have been in the scientism camp, and I was responding to them.

the belief in absolute time for example, has long been debunked

I don't think the question of causation and a miracle instantiation of a particle can be brushed aside by waving your hands at the idea of time. Many new ideas from physicists and astronomers, no matter how famous, are far-fetched and many will probably be proven to be crap.

hi

[Anonymous Coward]

what does your religion say about boys touching other boys' dongs?

I'm a long time dong toucher, but I dont want to piss off your Jebus character. What should I do?

Re:hi

[jwthompson2]

It is wrong, but I said Christian, not Catholic(unfair generalization). In fact I am a Southern Baptist, so a better charge might be 'queer hater/homophobe' although that doesn't really apply to me since a homosexual is no worse off in my book than a liar, adulterer, drunkard or other non-repentent sinner. Certainly they are no worse than I was before I accepted Christ.

If you are indeed a long time 'dong toucher' AC, I suggest you seek professional psychiatric and legal counsel.

Re:134 years to find

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and then there are complaints about not finding WMD in Iraq.

Doesn't Bush get 134 years to find WMD?

I know, this is flaimbait, but I thought it was relevant to the general conversation for you liberal, anti-war zealots out there who actually believe the theory of evolution.

Re:Completely OT Rant

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Why because it looks like people on /. don't have time for your religion.
Is Creationism tying in neatly w/ your Flat Earth Theory?