Slashdot Mirror
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.
"who knows what remnants of Darwin's trip may still lie down there"
I doubt there will be anything of Darwins on board. It did many things after his travels in it and was eventualy stripped down by someone else. It's like getting a used car with several owners before you. Will you really find anything worth wild from the first owner. Maybe an old green fry in the seat. Who wants that.
Evolution or ID?
Well, after Darwin travelled on it, it went through a long period as a coastguard ship, and then was moored in a river and used as a houseboat and customs vessel for several more years. So it's quite likely there won't be much evidence left from Darwin's voyages.
I hope you are joking. Your post is the intellectual summation of 2000 years of fear of the truth. Not saying that Darwin is the end-all-be-all truth, however, it is and always has been the fundemantal Christian's way to hide the eyes and lash out at anything that doesn't support the ultimate in tall tales and outlandish theories.
Darwinism has been studied relentlessly by thousands of teams of scientists and skeptics. No one has yet been able to prove it wrong. Quite the contrary, actually; most times evidence is dicovered to support the theory of evolution. I have yet to see a scientist prove that the Red Sea was parted or the burning bush spoke or the bones of the whale that Jonah lived in for 3 days and nights were found.
Religion is necessary bullshit. Nothing more.
I'm not looking to start a theological debate here, but just make the statement that it bugs me when some of the more fundamentalist Christians outright oppose evolution in schools because they see it as a blasphemy. Same thing happened when folks were debating the planet being round or that it isn't the center of the galaxy.
I know your comments weren't on this extreme level at all, but it just made me think of others who have taken such stances.
Paul Lenhart writes words!
HMS Beagle was very successful, it only ended up at the bottom of a marsh after years of useful voyages.
I've never been a fan of gravity. I don't seem to be able to float off into space though...
It's actually beyond fundamentalism.
When the Fundamentals were published, more than half of the people who worked on them believed in evolution. Christam Fundamentalism was primarily created to combat the rising notion in the early 1900's that there was no Virgin Birth, and that Jesus was no more the Son of God than any other man. It was the Hyperfundamentalism that Henry Morris and others stirred in the mid-20th century that really got the antievolutionary ball rolling.
Me, I agree with St. Augustine: If an unbeliever finds you inept in your explanation of the circuit of the sun in the heavens, how can he ever believe you on the important matters?
I have seen far more evidence that supports evolution than creation.... Funny how people can see such differences....
About the only thing creationists have as evidence is 'Because the book says so' and not so long ago it would be followed by 'and if you don't believe us were gonna burn ya'
Seriously, what evidence are you basing your creation theory on? The majority oppinion of the people around you?
My evidence is a bunch of skeletons showing the various stages of evolution, got anything better?
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Let's not undervalue history.
What value did Ballard's discovery of the Titanic and Bismark have? They wouldn't have been nearly as important if they had been some anonymous freighter that sank during a storm, even though the technological achievement would have been identical.
These are ships with history -- with stories that we deem important, interesting, or compelling. The stories that we value as a culture (species?) are part of what define who and what we are.
The value of the Beagle's discovery is purely historic. And in defining it as important or unimportant, we define something about ourselves as individuals and a society.
Darwinism is a Theory, nothing more. Nothing has proven it correct and nothing has proven it wrong.
Creationism is also a Theory, nothing more. Nothing has proven it correct (yet) and nothing has proven it wrong either. I say yet for creationism, because unlike Darwinish there's a chance that God may yet speak up and claim his wayward creations.
What I can't get over is why none of the Darwin advocates can accept that there's a chance that the wood cabin in the middle of the woods just happen and insist that someone had to have built it.
Can you believe it? Jesus did all this. He picked me off the street, strapped my arms and legs down to his cross, and just wouldn't stop fondling my cock'n'balls.
They definately were red flag touches. the goddamn referee kept on raising up this red flag every time he touched my junk but did Jesus care? NO WAY! He just kept on doing it. I couldn't believe what the fuck was going on, indeed. I pleaded with Jesus but to no avail. I told him the city would not approve of such a holy man touching an underage kid like me (at the time I was 13) without at least compensating me for the trauma and the use of my body as his own personal plaything.
This got to him, worrying about his image. He continued to fondle me, all the while ignoring the referee's red flags. Then he drove the Jesusmobile to my house and *ejected the seat I was in*! It was amazing. But surprisingly, after I woke up the next morning, my bank account had $150k in it! Can you believe it?
How is it that Darwinism (a theory) has to be proven wrong, yet Creationism (also a theory) has to be proven right. I call double standard. And don't try to give me the Darwinism is a theory in the mathematical sense and Creationism is a theory is a thory in the common sense. Evolution does have some evidence that SEEMS to suggest at it's correctness...but have you ever heard of epicycles?? Look it up. You'll see that the evidence fit the theory, but it was WRONG (at least we think now). Just because we have a suggestion of proof, doesn't make it true.
"As a long time moron that ignores scientific rational and puts my faith in a 2000 yr old book that only evolves only to suit those in power, I believe evolution is crap and fags are going to hell"
Is that what you really meant to say jwthompson2?
Jesus man, even the pope believes in the big bang -
Here is a quote on what he feels about evolution:
A 1996 quote from Pope John Paul II:
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of [Pius XII's] Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
I know, you're not catholic, you're southern baptist like I was - before I got a clue. You are out of touch, even by christian standards. This would be a lot longer post if you wanted me to rip your stance completely apart using only Christian points, but trust me it is trivial. Progressive Christian's are seeing the problems associated with centuries of denial - I suggest you try some real critical thinking if you intend to continue being a christian, and not a fundamentalist relic.
ymmv
I'm going to kick myself for biting flamebait in the morning, but oh well. I have room for a couple more hooks in my mouth.
I am not opposed to teaching evolution in schools, I am in favor of treating it as a theory though.
The problem here is that you don't know what a theory is. A theory is not a hypothesis. The exact definition is fairly complex, but the rough meaning is that, by all emprical methods, a theory is as right as we can get with the data we have.
Newtonian gravity is "just" a theory. It's also been overthrown: The only way to overthrow a theory is to make one that A. mechanically encompasses explains all observations explained by the existing theory, B. by the same* mechanism encompasses, explains, and/or corrects observations not covered by the previous theory, or in conflict with the previous theory. Relativity covered everything the old theory of gravity did, plus it corrected for things like Mercury orbiting too fast and partially explained why Neptune and Uranus are all out of orbital-mechanical whack.
My biggest problem is that it is used as a defense to try and disprove the truth of the Bible and is treated as fact when it has yet to be and probably can not be proven.
I'm not going to get into the proof, but there's enough of it that Henry Morris as encorporated evolution (or what he calls "selective diversification") into his antievolutionary model. He dresses it up nicely, but in the end, he's showing you a Zebu and calling it a Nene, and banking on the fact that most people probably don't know the difference anyway.
Anyway, science has NEVER, and in fact CAN never attempt to use Evolution against any Theological construct, because the bible covers matter that is not proximate in nature. Science can cover the proximate all it wants, because it has access to the proximate within its means of action.
It can draw no conclusions on nonproxmiate or superproximate events or actions, and in fact has very clear boundaries set on just where it has to stop.
It is Christianity that bears full and complete responsibility for saying that Evolution means the end of Christianity, and all that other slippery slope gloom and doom. Christians published The Genesis Flood, God and Evolution, and The Fall of Noah. Not scientists, but Christians. They had help from a few secular philosophers like Sagan and Asimov, but for every secular attack on Christianity, there's a thousand self-inflicted wounds.
If you plan to talk to your kids about evolution, remember not to build a dam around your house in the river. The more parents attempt to protect, misinform, uninform, or isolate their children, the more those children learn about things for themselves, and when they do, they know nothing but their parent's determination that what they're told on Sunday disagrees with what they see the other seven days, and the more we drive our own children out of the Church forever.
It should be clear to any rational thinker that the most, if not all, of the Bible is intended to be metaphorical rather than literal. EG, the Book of Job is allegorical rather than a record of actual events. The basic problem with the literal interpretation theory is that even if you accept that the Bible is the result of Divine Inspiration, it is still a *human*, and therefore flawed, interpretation of God's word. (IIRC) According to (self-contridictory) Judeo-Christian tradition [Specifically Exodus 24:12-15], the only physical writing to come directly from God was on the first set of stone tables Moses carried down from the mountian.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
If it holds such important why was it sold for scrap?
It has historic value today. It didn't back then - it was only a tool.
A broken civil war rifle or a cracked native american clay pot might have been thrown away as garbage in their time, but today they are valuable artifacts worth $$$ and part of private collections or museums.
Obligatory Indiana Jones quote. "Look at this [holds up a pocket watch]. It's worthless, $10 from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it into the sand for a thousand years and it becomes priceless, like the ark. Men will kill for it, men like you and me."
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Creationism generally is not approached as a theory, its advocates bring to the table a fully fleshed out explanation and then demand that it is the truth, to totally without any evidence or debate on the reasoning behind it. It is also not a testable tool. You can't go into a lab and use creationism to make predictions about what will happen in an experiment.
On the other hand, there is a lot of testable material in Darwinism: You can go into a lab and demonstrate evolution at work in a petri dish. So portions of Darwinism are provable (within scientific standards... that is you can never prove a theory, just demonstrate that it is the best one for the job at the moment...).
Now there are corollaries that are not provable (primal genertor being one of the more controversial), but there is a solid body of reasoning, and a lot active thinking going about this. The same cannot be said for Creationism.
If people were swayed by facts, or were even capable of recognizing them, superstition would have died centuries ago and most politicians would be unsuccessfully trying to sell used cars instead of feeding at the public trough.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The Victorian British were not a sentimental bunch about preserving their past. It was a time of enormous technological progress - much more akin to the US of today. Precious few of their technological triumphs still survive.
To give just one example, take the three ocean liners built by Brunel. Great Western, the first successful ocean-going steamship was broken up for scrap in 1856.
Her massive sister ship, Great Britain, the first entirely iron-built ship and the first to be powered by a screw was turned into a hulk for servicing whaling ships in 1886. She was allowed to rot until 1968 - when she was brought back to Bristol where she is being restored.
Brunel's utterly vast Great Eastern was quietly broken up in 1888, despite being by far the largest ship in the World and having laid the first global network of telegraph cables. No one mourned.
Best wishes,
Mike.
PS. Having thought about it - liners are a very good example of the British unsentimentality towards technology. The only surviving British ocean liner is Queen Mary (and then it was the Americans who wanted it, Cunard wanted to scrap her), all the other great liners such as Mauretania, Queen Elizabeth and Canberra all went to the breakers yards.
"There is no empirical evidence that the universe was created by an omnipotent deity"
How would you/we know what that empirical evidence looked like?
"Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
The theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.
Baloney. Evolution has predicted huge numbers of things. Here are some examples:
1. Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil evidence and genetic evidence [Ingman et al. 2000].
2. Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients [Oliver et al. 2000].
3. Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey [Yoshida et al. 2003].
4. Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction [Webster et al. 2003].
5. Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. Based on a detailed study, the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" [Mallatt and Chen 2003].
You need to learn the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a fairy tale. You cannot pull any idea out of your ass and call it a theory -- until you have tested it and produced supporting experimental and/or observational evidence it's (at best) hypothesis.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
- A valid scientific theory must be falsifiable -- it has to allow for some means for it to be proven false. Darwinism passes this test, Creationism does not. Your complaint that "Creationism has to be proven right" is because creationism does not allow for disproof -- any conflicting evidence is dismissed with the "it's that way because God made it that way" handwave.
- A valid scientific theory must have predictive value. Darwinsim has predictive value, creationism does not.
Because creationism is not scientifically testable, it is not a scientific theory. You could call Creationism a hypothesis if you were feeling generous (and a fairytale if you are not). It's not a theory and never will be because it lacks the defining attributes of a scientific theory.Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
IMHO you are deluded.
Evolution is not a theory. Scientists aren't trying to prove that evolution happened. It is accepted to be a real fact.
The THEORIES of evolution surround what the mechanisms of evolution are, was it genetic mutations, natural disasters, etc. HOW did evolution occur, not DID it occur.
It's a stupid point to argue about. If you need a single holy creator, than you need to work him into the scheme of the big things: millions of galaxies and galaxy clusters, a potentially life rich universe, why is there life at all? Don't argue the small points like the evolving body of genetics found on Earth.
All the theological apologism you can throw at the matter doesn't disguise the fact that bulk of the body of religious literature which eventually became "the Bible" was written by people who believed in its literal truth as the word of God. As science learns more about our world, the amount of religious belief that any intelligent, educated person can hold diminishes -- which is why so many very intelligent people spend so much time coming up with ever-more-elaborate justifications for beliefs based on ancient superstitions. But it doesn't work. Those stories weren't meant as allegory. They were told by people who believed every word of them. If modern, sophisticated believers have trouble dealing with that fact, then that's their problem.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
It is a characteristic of zealots that they want to believe that a) everyone is either with them or against them, and b) both sides hold easily categorized sets of beliefs. The idea that there are ideologies orthogonal to their own just doesn't fit into their worldview.
;)
Me, I'm a patriotic liberal anti-war pro-gun atheist evolution-believing veteran. The grandparent poster probably has never even imagined that people like me exist.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Have you listened to what modern Literalist Christians actually say? Take the Book of Job as an example. Most people would consider it to be an allegory designed to convey a theological point. However, there are a significant number of Christians (of the Falwell/Robertson brigade) would would maintain that Job is a literal and accurate transcription of actual historical events.
My personal observation is that the predominant view among anti-evolutionist Christians is that the KJV Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God. Yes, there are educated and rational Christians out there who have a more realistic intrepretation of the Bible; but they generally aren't the ones foaming at the mouth about evil-loution or driving around with bumper stickers where the "truth" fish is eating the "darwin" fish.
My original observation, that the God described in the Old Testament is capricious, bloodthirsty, and sadistic remains unchanged. Leviticus in particular has God threatining dire punishments or commanding his followers to perform barbaric acts in every third verse. Deuteronomy has God repeatedly ordering his followers to kill every man, woman, and child of neighboring tribes -- although if he was feeling particuarly generous he let the faithful rape the women and bring them home as slaves. 1 Samuel has him killing 50,070 people just for looking at him funny, as well as more genocidal commands. 2 Samuel has him punishing his own people with a plague for the unauthorized genocide committed by the former king, and sending another one because David conducted a census. In 2 Kings he has a pair of bears eat 42 rude children who were mocking his bald buddy Elisha. And the list goes on.
Even taken allegorically, the messages of the Old Testiment are crystal clear: "Mercilessly kill everyone who worships another god (or who lives in the general vicinity of people who worship another god)", and "Do what I want or else I will do horrible things to you and everyone you know".
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?