Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life

mathinator writes "A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life. The paper was authored by doctoral student Feng Tian, Prof. Owen Toon and Research Associate Alexander Pavlov of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and by Prof. Hans De Sterk of University of Waterloo's Applied Mathematics department. The paper was published in the April 7 issue of Science Express, the online edition of Science Magazine"

Comments

This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

as is the theory of creation, both should be equally taken in with an open mind, and studied carefully.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as the idea that God snapped his fingers and created everything. If it is more reasonable to suggest God created everything, what created God, something so awsome that he could create everything we see today?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[aslate]

Only if argued at the same critical and scientific level, and not argued on the "It's written here, so it's true" logic.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[king-manic]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered
-----------------------
as is the theory of creation, both should be equally taken in with an open mind, and studied carefully.
-----------------------

Gravity is actually just a theory too, the whole law thing is just a name. So should consider non-gravity as a equal theory? How about the theory the earth is round, it's onyl a theory after all. Perfectly valid explanations of how it's "flat but all the evidence to the contrary is faked" also exist, should we consider both of the equally?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Yolegoman]

If one believes God created us, then one can accept on faith that there are some things which we cannot understand - like how God exists in the first place. We have finite minds, our minds cannot comprehend something always existing, but I know it's true because I'm willing to accept it on faith.

I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[king-manic]

If one believes God created us, then one can accept on faith that there are some things which we cannot understand - like how God exists in the first place. We have finite minds, our minds cannot comprehend something always existing, but I know it's true because I'm willing to accept it on faith.

I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!

I find it much more reasonable that I wrote your post then to beleive that it evolved out of the random soup of the internet. Thus I must be denying 200 years and thousands of independant pieces of information and the entire biology branch of science to support a theological idea that a minority of christians hold.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[bman08]

When do we get to put a sticker on the bible?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Kagura]

Bah, we all know the earth is only 6000 years old! Science is made up by a bunch of anti-god atheists who are conspiring to steal our tax dollars! Or, so says Dr. Kend Hovind. Debunking of all his arguments from his many video tapes and debates may be found here.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[0racle]

Other then the idea that the universe magically created itself and everything in it, exactly what parts of '200 years and thousands of independant(sic) pieces of information and the entire biology branch of science' have to be ignored? Creation is no more far fetched then evolution, your just changing what your god is.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just being cynical here, but given that your site contains lego re-enactments of Indiana Jones, and strange IRC logs, I'm going to assume you're not a real creationist.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[06metzp]

When do we get to put a sticker on the bible?

When you publish the Bible.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mrRay720]

I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!

I find it much more reasonable to believe that this awesome universe evolved exactly the way it did than that some mythical guy called God snapped his fingers and it all, like, happened dude! Funny how we both believe different, contradictary, things. It's almost as if beliefs mean crap all... I guess we have to fall back on that tried and true method of applying logic and evidence to the situation. What evidence do you have? Some crusty old multitranslated book written by some random people? Well I guess you win...

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't you be going back under your bridge now?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[TheGavster]

If you can accept that there is a God that has always existed, why not skip the whole divine being bit and say the earth and all its inhabitants have existed forever? The whole divine being thing just gives 'holy men' a means of control ('of course I'm right! God said so.').

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

...I know it's true because I'm willing to accept it on faith.

That's kinda an oxymoronic statement.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Peaker]

Other then the idea that the universe magically created itself and everything in it, exactly what parts of '200 years and thousands of independant(sic) pieces of information and the entire biology branch of science' have to be ignored? Creation is no more far fetched then evolution, your just changing what your god is.

Who said the universe was "created"? Time is part of the universe, so there is no meaning to the phrase "before" the universe. Creation implies that there is a time "before" the universe, so it could not have been created (Unless time is not part of the universe, but then you can define the "universe" to be a larger thing that does include time). Also, the observable law of conservation of mass and energy suggests that there was no point in time with a different amount of mass/energy thus strongly suggesting there was never a "creation".

The theory of relativity also suggests that time may be finite and there may be a point with no points in time before it, allowing the universe to never have been created and finite.

Also, changing my "god" to be "evolution" and the laws of physics is a big change. Because I am not only changing who my god is, I am changing the amount of complexity I throw unto this creature "god" which obviously represents the never-to-be-known. Thus I have more that I may know and less that I will never know.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[vadim_t]

Nonsense.

God is simply a placeholder for what we don't understand. Some time ago lightning was thought to come from some dude sitting on top of a mountain and throwing thunderbolts from it. And there were corresponding deities for everything else people didn't understand, such as natural disasters, seasons, life and death.

These days lots of these have unsurprisingly vanished, since we don't believe anymore that there is winter because Demeter misses Persephone during those months.

I'm pretty sure that as soon as the remaining mysteries are explained the rest of the belief in gods will vanish in a puff of logic. After all, what use is some guy sitting somewhere in the clouds when things have a more reasonable explanation?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[GreyWolf3000]

Creation implies that there is a time "before" the universe

Not at all, the creator need not be bound by the time that he creates within the universe at all.

It's perfectly possible that our universe has a creator and the universe always existed, in the sense that if we could travel back in time, we would never reach a "beginning." In fact, the universe could have been created 15 years ago, with a history spanning forever.

Creationism does imply that we cannot understand the creator as he exists outside of the universe while we exist within this one, which is where I think you've tripped up:

Because I am not only changing who my god is, I am changing the amount of complexity I throw unto this creature "god" which obviously represents the never-to-be-known. Thus I have more that I may know and less that I will never know.

Unless, of course, that creator entered the universe himself and starded interacting with it's inhabitants.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Captain Tripps]

Fair enough. Evolution (and cosmology for that matter) still have a lot left to explain. But to me, it's a smaller leap of faith to accept their truth than any one of the multitude of conflicting religious explanations. I do agree with you about some things being unexplainable, though. Lately I've started to think that human intelligence is that way, and that's why AI hasn't made any real headway. As Lyall Watson put it: "If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't". But I could well be wrong there.

And that's the more important thing, perhaps. Not what the particular standard of evidence is for you to change your beliefs, but that there is one. I mean, I'd be a much happier person if I were religious, and no longer had to fear my own mortality. But I'm just psychologically incapable of making such a commitment of belief without objective proof.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Bullfish]

Well, duh... it does contain information about evolution, it was published by a university, by scientists and their ilk. It boggles my mind that in the 21rst century, on the internet, in a place where people with a grasp of science come to dialogue, that we have to wade through crap posted by the superstitious defending their mythology. Of course, people try to argue with them from a scientific basis while they just go "no, no, non. blah, blah, blah, with their fingers in their ears.

You want to believe, fine, believe, you want to hand out tract literature showing how unless everybody follows your beliefs that a disembodied thumb will squish you into the ground, fine, but stick to your own kind. Go on a picnic, it is a beautiful Saturn's Day outside. Bring along some books to burn so you can toast your wafers.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[NAACPsupporter]

my evidence is my faith

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MrFlannel]

When you publish the Bible.

The [insert religious denomination here] didn't publish the science textbooks.
Why should the bible be subject to special treatment?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[tzvicky]

Another theory is much more interesting: God created physical laws and then the universe evolved in the way we know. This idea, in my opinion, is acceptable for both people believing in God's finger and in the evolution theory.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Smidge204]

After all, what use is some guy sitting somewhere in the clouds when things have a more reasonable explanation?

Control through fear and ignorance. People have been leveraging religion to control the masses (no pun intended) since the day it was invented.
=Smidge=

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some crusty old multitranslated book written by some random people? Well I guess you win...

Have you ever read that book?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[GreyWolf3000]

Well, I may be way off here, but I think the difference is that the Bible isn't a textbook. If it were being used as a textbook, you'd have an point. But it isn't, so you don't.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mrRay720]

Ah. You double triple win, then. I can't even hope to argue against such solid compelling evidence.

Things like heirachies of species, fossil evidence of changes over time, comsic radiation in line with that expected from the big bang theory, and a complete lack of evidence of 'God' mean nothing compared to some slashdot poster's faith.

I hereby grant all authority on such matters to you, due to your evidence in the form of faith.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MrFlannel]

Why not?
It's used to teach people. People reference the information inside of it.
What's the difference?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow since you have so much faith in the scientific process, I invite you to answer God's questions in Job 38-40.

Here's a link to make things convenient for you.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mrRay720]

Have you ever read that book?

Not in its entirity, but significant parts of it, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Either way, the fact remains that since there's no supporting evidence, it's still just a book, We can't verify its origins, or duplicate its claims.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that it isn't forced down your throat in school.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[codefungus]

HAHAHAHAH

Right on

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mrRay720]

Can you give me that question in plain english? I can't stand all that Austin 3:16 "and thus the mule said unto the donkey, take thy furrow into the filed and harvert of the life" nonsense. If you expect me to answer in plain English, as I surely shall, please ask in plain English.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell for scientific and archaelogical evidence of the Bible.

Josh McDowell was a big-time skeptic who thought Christians were nuts.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Gilgaron]

Gaia, the Earth, was birthed of Chaos, if I recall correctly. No one made out her dimensions, save perhaps herself. That covers most of all that up through 11.

Most of the animal's traits were given out by Epimetheus, who forgot to leave any for Man, so Prometheus helped them out and gave them fire. He wasn't crucified, but he was bound to a rock by chains and an eagle tore out his entrails every day for quite some time.

Zeus and Poseidon handle most of the weather effects mentioned.

That's a summary of a few of my favorite myths, anyway. Thanks for sharing yours.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Gilgaron]

Sure, it's a bit dry compared to, say, Herodotus, what with all the lineages, but the New Testament isn't too bad, if lacking in some of the fun Greco-Roman god style smiting that you get in the Old Testament. I've been meaning to get around to reading some of the Bhagavad Gita but haven't so far. Any other religious texts you'd recommend?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are trying to be funny... However, `evolution`, or what ever you want to call it is a theorem, not a theory. You can prove it happens based on some simple axioms. The only thing you can argue about is timescales. (Which is what modern biologists are doing: "Is evolution proceding uniformly, or does it happen in bursts?", for example.)

In case anyone is interested, the axioms are:

1) Parents have children.
2) Children tend to look like their parents.
3) Mutations happen. i.e. children do not always inherit all their traits from their parents.
4) Organisms are different
5) Such differences yield to different probabilities for a given organism to survive and reproduce.
6) More children are born than survive to adulthood.

The proof goes as follows: Given a distribution of 'fitness' for a population, given by axioms 4 and 5 we can calculate which 'parents' will survive to have 'children' (that some do is axiom 1). From axiom 6, many children will be born, and from axiom 2 those children will be like their parents. From this you can calculate the new distribution of 'fitness'. Noting that it will be different due to axioms 6 and 5 (ignoring singular cases where everyone has the same fitness), gives the initial stages of evolution. Now, for evolution to continue, you need new variation (infinite inbreeding is bad, the population tends to a set of clones, and the singular case above is the result), so axiom 3 is needed to fix that.

Now, it is even possible to prove that the axioms happen.

For each axiom:
1) Obvious, really.
2) If you don't believe this, then you are an idiot. :-) i.e. People `tend` to give birth to people, not other animals and plants.
3) You need a little science for this one, but it is possible to sequence DNA, and show mistakes happen.
4) Obvious, really.
5) This one can be measured as well. For example albino tigers have trouble surviving in the wild since they have trouble hiding.
6) I know one class mate who died before adulthood, and that one example is enough to prove this one.

Done! Well... if you want more, you can start doing mathematical models of the various axioms. You can try different mathematical functions for axioms 4 and 5 and see how the different results affect the timescales involved.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You've proved that you are an idiot.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Geeko Roman]

Poppycock.

Electricity is a theory too, and you can't prove it by holding it in your hand, but that doesn't mean the methods the scientists came up with to explain it aren't valid. Evolution is as close to a fact as anyone who holds an ancient half-history half-fiction book needs. The fact that the book itself says it's fact doesn't make it fact, and this should be obvious to anyone with all their teeth.

God may exist, but if he/she does, for all intents and purposes he set forth Evolotion and all that entails as his/her handywork, plus the mountains and mountains and mountains of corroborating evidence to prove it. The Bible is a book a group of people wrote to serve their own purposes. Convieniently, it fit their purposes for their day and age.

I doubt a God as stated in the Bible would devalue women so much as to send his son and not his daughter, instead of the reality that a man wrote the Bible ages ago when women weren't even remotely treated equally. Reality may hurt, but it's still reality.

My family prays for me, and if what they want happens they say "It could only be God" but if it doesn't, they don't say anything. Funny. They look for things to fit their dogma, and close their ears when it doesn't.

Conversely, scientists slowly and usually sheepishly turn in white-papers with their findings and their conclusions after giving it to colleagues to read over, and the community carefully takes the new information into consideration, always with the suspicious eye. Only when information, data, results has not been found by any known means to be wrong does it get elevated to the "might be true" status. Then only after many other documents corroborating it are similarly published does the original data/results get elevated to "probably true". Scientists are so ready concede incorrect results, and religious people are so ready to say they're right for no other reason than they decide they are.

Religous texts fail the moment they are put to half the scrutiny that scientists who pursue Evolution as you say as a "theory", put to it every day. Even if scraps of the texts are true, the parts concerning scientific interest fail miserably.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MightyMartian]

A yes, the good old textbook disclaimer. Of course, the intent of this disclaimer is to dishonestly confuse the definition of the word "theory" as used in common nonclemature as opposed to the one used by science. It's a nasty trick by Creationists who have in every other arena been shown to be advocates of a religious very far removed from reality, and who now have to stoop to deliberate deceits like the one above or to Intelligent Design, whose basic notion is nothing more than "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution".

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[06metzp]

The [insert religious denomination here] didn't publish the science textbooks. Why should the bible be subject to special treatment?

Because,
The [insert public school here] doesn't use the bible as a textbook.

They're not in the same category.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

God does not exist in any form. Deal with it.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MightyMartian]

It really helps that you first of all not bunch up or confuse several different theories that have damn little in common. If you wish to believe in magic, go for it, but I for one am very interested in how things happened, not in simply handwaving the entirety of existence as some sort of unknowable act of Providence, because that is about as anti-knowledge as anything could be.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mdwh2]

Except creationism isn't a theory. It's conjecture - or at best a hypothesis, though not a very good one since it is unfalsifiable.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're creating religion. This is the problem in the first place, that people have "explained away" things like creation and evolution and don't know what they're talking about.

I prefer to trust thousands of years worth of research to your two-second theory. You not only have no proof that God always existed and created the physical laws to start evolution, but you haven't done the least bit of research into the area. The Bible is a collection of letters, stories, and teachings put together and studied for thousands of years. It's about relationships, those that have worked and those that failed, and love that surpasses our understanding... like one person giving another person he doesn't even know the clothes off his back, or dying for them even though they beat him, ridiculed him, and spat in his face.

And at least the theories of evolution have a worldwide backing and some effort of research, even if it is a relatively tiny amount of time. Don't make up stuff... ideas like yours are why we have so many religions in the first place.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[northcat]

I'm surprised this didn't get modded down as flamebait. Maybe flamefest would be more appropriate. I mean, this article would have went without another flame war.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[misleb]

I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!

Would you believe that this Awesome Universe "evolved" in a way other than it did?

What you mean to say is that you find it much *easier* to believe that the universe was created with a snap of the fingers. Reason has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you were using reason, you would be seeking to find the real answers rather than believe what you find easiest.

-matthew

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

God is such a condescending prick. Most of the things he asks are the results of circular logic. His mom should've tought him better.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[IdIoTt]

Someone was heard to utter:

"Gravity is actually just a theory too, the whole law thing is just a name. So should consider non-gravity as a equal theory? How about the theory the earth is round, it's onyl a theory after all. Perfectly valid explanations of how it's "flat but all the evidence to the contrary is faked" also exist, should we consider both of the equally?"

Pick up a ball and drop it. Now do it again. Now, once more for good measure. Nope, I can't see the difference between theories. Oh WAIT! Experiments based on gravity are REPEATABLE! *gasp* But please, continue with your solid "fact" of evolution and the big bang. I'll be waiting to see video of the repeatability of your experiments. I'm sure they aren't solely based on observations. Of things supposedly 14 billion years in the past. Because I'm sure someone had a camcorder rolling.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[misleb]

Other then the idea that the universe magically created itself and everything in it, exactly what parts of '200 years and thousands of independant(sic) pieces of information and the entire biology branch of science' have to be ignored? Creation is no more far fetched then evolution, your just changing what your god is.

FYI, the origins of the universe and whether or not it "created itself" have abolsutely nothing to do with biology or evolution. Evolution pertains to the origin of (new) species... not the origin of Everything. I just thought I would point that out before you continue to make a fool of yourself by making ridiculous distortions of what evolutionary theory says.

-matthew

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. You've obviously never been to a state funded school in the UK? Where they almost always stuff it down your throat. Religous assemblies included.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is not corroborated by "mountains and mountains" of evidence. What you can say is that there are many, many cases of groups of living things in a particular environment having characteristics different from others of those in their species living outside that environment.

As far as I know, there aren't any cases of one species evolving into another. That is, I know of no evidence that a species, over time, developed a branch that could not breed with the rest of the species. I know of no evidence in the fossil record of a gradual change from one species to another.

I have seen plenty of cases of self-proclaimed "scientists" accepting evolution as fact, rather than as merely plausible.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[DigiShaman]

I have faith in God and the afterlife. That is faith.

I do NOT look to the bible as literal facts or even based on logic. The bible to me is a book of philosophy and good morals to the human race. If however we were to ignore logic and the process of science, you and I would not be here talking on computers hooked to the Internet...which by the way was created using logical thinking to create such technology.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[WhitetailKitten]

I think AC was being ironic, actually.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Rakishi]

Technically evolution says nothing about how life began, simply what happened afterwards.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Jicksta]

Hahaha,

Yeah, and show me so-called "repeatable proof" that validates the creation theory.

Seriously... you people...

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[millennial]

Not at all, the creator need not be bound by the time that he creates within the universe at all.br/>
Wrong. To say that God created the universe in ANY amount of time is to confine Him to a time-based existence. Something outside of time cannot interact in any meaningful fashion with things in time; it might just end up randomly throwing things together at different points in time, since they seem orderly to it. For God to understand time, God must be in time.

It's perfectly possible that our universe has a creator and the universe always existed, in the sense that if we could travel back in time, we would never reach a "beginning." In fact, the universe could have been created 15 years ago, with a history spanning forever.

Also wrong. It is NOT possible that the universe has always existed. Scientists have conclusively proven that the universe is expanding. If the universe had always existed, there would be no way to tell if it was expanding; the change in size of an infinitely large universe would be so negligible as to be unmeasureable.

As for the whole "15-year-old world" argument, that's just silly. We wouldn't have a "history spanning forever"; we'd have a history spanning 15 minutes, and LEGENDS of everything before that.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Bible is a book a group of people wrote to serve their own purposes."

Well, if that's the case, they sure put alot restrictions on themselves. Ever read the 10 commandments? That doesn't sound like something that we humans, who are notorious for destroying ourselves would write. "Love thy neighbor as thy self" doesn't exactly fit into the thinking of humans either. We tend to be inheirently selfish creatures. So, WHY would anyone write a book that contradicts their nature under the pretense that it will "serve their own purposes"?? For the people who want to bash the Bible on the grounds that it is not scientifically accurate, they are fools. Why was the Bible written? To better mankind and to maintain a connection with God. It was not written to prove the existence of quarks or show that the earth is round. I get so annoyed by the arrogance of people when they think modern science is the final answer. Modern science has it's limits just like anything else. Let us not forget that it is also subject to be rewritten at any moment, afterall, isn't the goal of science the pursuit of physical truth? Maybe we should remember that the next time we get bent out of shape when someone questions what we consider to be physical truth. If this kind of arrogance doesn't stop, we will be set right back to the way of thinking in the dark ages. Instead of the Catholic church supressing knowledge, we will have atheists and agnostics doing the job this time around.

That's my 2 bits and this is Slashdot, so don't lose any sleep over this reply, as I sure won't.

Happy clams, and peanut nostrils!!

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[millennial]

She would have, but she was too busy being worshipped by Catholics... those pesky praying prattlers!

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Jicksta]

Actually, Christians do produce their own academic materials.

Scary...

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never before has a user name been so appropriate. Now to see if he repeats the behavior. BTW, how's the video of God creating the universe? Kinda grainy?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

A model that the observable changes in macrobiotic life apply to macrobiotic life is as tenuous as creationism?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Jicksta]

I thought 40% of the UK's population doesn't believe in a higher power, though?

Where's the protest?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is microbiotic life to macrobiotic; but fossil records or even geographical distance and genetic testing demonstrate change in the same fashion.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, read over the history of Influenza, a nonliving virus; it has changed by passage through its environment and differing strains have differing levels of success. You can observe this every year you are alive and see.-mutations causing varied lengths of prevalence for varied strains of Influenza. Preform the same research on, for example, E.Coli and notice that even with application of every antibiotic that exists to a sufficiently large culture, some will survive and colonies will develop-differentiation allowing survival. Greater complexity entails greater intervals but the same mechanisms are acting. Note the peculiarity of animal and plant life in Australia or the Galapagos islands for examples-isolation of those organisms has caused them to be subject to different environmental stresses and certain traits are widespread in those gene pools apart from others. That or shifts in breeding times cause speciation due to that separation. The big bang it is evidenced by the expansion of universe and has little to do, except philosophically, with evolution.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[ucblockhead]

Unfortunately this doesn't work for one of the earliest criticisms of evolutionary theory, which was that it only explained small-scale changes in a single species but didn't explain how speciation occurred.

One of the earliest attacks on Darwin went something like "Well, sure, that explains how minor changes occur to species, but it doesn't explain how species came about in the first place."

Also, your number (2) has to be more rigorous than just "tends" in order for the logic chain to work.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Jicksta]

Congradulations. You've proved that in an argument you resort to name calling.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

We can, however, use the "I saw it on FOX, so it's true" logic...

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Created things also have a beginning, and the universe (as we understand it) certainly had a beginning. It's one of those weird paradoxes about the nature of time and space that the universe can have a beginning, but that nothing came before it.

Even though I'm not a Bible-thumper, your semantic quibbling is pretty lame; I think you could defend your point a little better by, you know, admitting that nobody really knows: Many scientists now suspect that there was still something "before" the creation of the universe, be it infinite universes or some weird gravastar-like partially collapsed thingie, but we can't make any predictions based on current physics before the Planck's time. There's actually plenty of room in our current rather sketchy theories, believe it or not, for God or whatever to have created the universe. It's not science's mission to answer those questions, though.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Tim C]

The *existence* of gravity isn't a theory, what's a theory is our explanations for it and description of the mechanics of it - the equations, in other words.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

The protest is this: we are force fed material on the state religion - plain and simple. The fact that 40% of the population doesn't buy it is a mere indication of its stupidity.

Re: This article contains material on evolution.

[Black Parrot]

> Creation is no more far fetched then evolution

Except that one has piles of supporting evidence and the other has nothing.

> your just changing what your god is.

Evolution isn't a divinity, doesn't appeal to one, and indeed doesn't tell you anything about divinity except that if any divinities exist(ed), they didn't prevent evolution from happening.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

...Some crusty old fossils and the theory of evolution has believers - Where did everything evolve from? Nothing? Where did all the energy for the big bang to happens come from???

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[GreyWolf3000]

I see you appear to have done your best to misunderstand me.

Wrong. To say that God created the universe in ANY amount of time is to confine Him to a time-based existence.

Why? If God created time itself, then he can exist both in and outide of it as he well pleases. In fact, he could easily create many universes, each with its own time.

Something outside of time cannot interact in any meaningful fashion with things in time; it might just end up randomly throwing things together at different points in time, since they seem orderly to it. For God to understand time, God must be in time.

You're going to have to give me more than that. As it stands, simply calling him 'God' implies omniscience.

Also wrong. It is NOT possible that the universe has always existed. Scientists have conclusively proven that the universe is expanding. If the universe had always existed, there would be no way to tell if it was expanding; the change in size of an infinitely large universe would be so negligible as to be unmeasureable.

Current scientific theory holds that time in fact "expands" with the universe, so if you went 'back in time' you'd never stop, because your change-in-time approaches 0 as time slows.

As for the whole "15-year-old world" argument, that's just silly. We wouldn't have a "history spanning forever"; we'd have a history spanning 15 minutes, and LEGENDS of everything before that.

You're going to have to use your imagination, but, imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all.

I'm not suggesting this is true; I merely want you to visualize this as a way of picturing how God could create time and exist outside it.

By the way, despite all of the smarminess and arrogance on both sides, I've found this thread quite interesting.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[myowntrueself]

"Because,
The [insert public school here] doesn't use the bible as a textbook."

Ok fair enough.

So all thats needed to get equivalent stickers on the bibles is for the schools to start using the bible as a textbook?

I'd support that.

I bet it'd get a lot of support.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[06metzp]

Christians do produce their own academic materials.

Of course they do. Any religion that also has a formal education system probably produces their own academic materials. That's why I said "Insert public school here."

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[abirdman]

The fact that evolution is a theory does not make creationism anything besides a middle eastern myth from ~3500 years ago, probably dreamed up (at least written down) by clerics trying to keep order among a peasant and slave class, passed to our time through a sketchy set of translations, and believed now by simpletons and Republicans. I can't stand when some Bible-beating dork states that, because creationism can't be proved, then any cockamamie story his grandmother told him is just as likely to be true. Crap, I say! Creationism isn't science, it's literature. Get over it.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[BlueFashoo]

3) You need a little science for this one, but it is possible to sequence DNA, and show mistakes happen.

You don't have to sequence DNA, just do an Ames test with a known mutagen. You probably have one of those in your kitchen or bathroom. Of course, a His- strain of salmanella or whatever easily selected strain of a species you want and some His- media aren't exactly the sort of thing that most people keep in their kitchen. Anyhow, what will happen is this, some revertant mutants will randomly appear throughout the plate, and if the chemical is a mutagen, there will be a distinct clustering of mutants around the paper disk soaked in the mutagen.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Biolog yP ages/A/AmesTest.html

5) Such differences yield to different probabilities for a given organism to survive and reproduce.

See the average /. user for example.

6) More children are born than survive to adulthood.

Not every organism that reaches adulthood will reproduce. Many people die of old age without reproducing or having the capability of reproducing. Yes, i'm nitpicking.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

When do we get to put a sticker on the bible?

when it's used as a school textbook

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

big bang...evidence...mentioned in the same sentence. Can you even give ONE expample of an explosion that created anything?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[BlueFashoo]

Try the writings of Epicurus of Samos. You can read them here: http://www.epicurus.net/ or just buy a printed copy like I did. Not religious per se, but a good guide on how to live the good life. And no, it's not about living a life of maximum pleasure.

You might also be interested in the Eddas, particularily the Havamal from the Poetic Edda. In my not so humble opinion, the Norse myths are better than the Greek myths. They're funnier for one, and as a non-theist, Ragnorak has a certain appeal.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[king-manic]

Pick up a ball and drop it. Now do it again. Now, once more for good measure. Nope, I can't see the difference between theories. Oh WAIT! Experiments based on gravity are REPEATABLE! *gasp* But please, continue with your solid "fact" of evolution and the big bang. I'll be waiting to see video of the repeatability of your experiments. I'm sure they aren't solely based on observations. Of things supposedly 14 billion years in the past. Because I'm sure someone had a camcorder rolling.

You show you don't understand evolutionary theory beyond a rudementry high school level. Take a batch of fruit flies (100,000 plus). Not squish any with wings. Let them breed, and repeat. Do this 20-30 times and you now have a population of wingless fruit flies. Evolution, as undeniable as dropping a ball. Repeatable too but only wiht sufficiently big numbers.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[king-manic]

Pick up a ball and drop it. Now do it again. Now, once more for good measure. Nope, I can't see the difference between theories. Oh WAIT! Experiments based on gravity are REPEATABLE! *gasp* But please, continue with your solid "fact" of evolution and the big bang. I'll be waiting to see video of the repeatability of your experiments. I'm sure they aren't solely based on observations. Of things supposedly 14 billion years in the past. Because I'm sure someone had a camcorder rolling.


Your post shows you don't understand evolution. You haven't even an idea of what the theory is about. To see a solid example of evolution, take a bottle of fruit flies (100,000 + ), kill any that have wings (there is always a set of deformed fruit flies in any population large enough), then let the survivors breed. repeat 20 times, and you have a population of wingless fruit flies. This is evolution happening right in front of your eyes.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[kelzer]

If one believes God created us, then one can accept on faith that there are some things which we cannot understand - like how God exists in the first place. We have finite minds, our minds cannot comprehend something always existing, but I know it's true because I'm willing to accept it on faith.

I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!

HEY MODERATORS!!!

Read the freaking moderation guidelines. This post did NOT deserve to be modded down as a troll. You do NOT moderate a post as a troll just because you disagree with the content.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MarthaStewart32]

Gravity is a theory because it cant be proven. The data between relatovity and quantum mechanics do not match. That means that something could be wrong with our model of general relavtity and that is why gravity is a theory. So while although "nongravity" may seem ridiculous gravity as we know it could be flawed and likely is. All of belief systems have their holes. If evolution could be proven, it wouldn't be a theory. But it has yet to be proven. Many obstacles are in the way. Irreducible complexity is one that still gets me. Many other problems exist. And same goes with Young Earth Creationism. For example if they dont believe in "evolution" what happened after the flood? The animals had to evolve within a very very very short time period. (Y.E. Creationist believe that the fall had already occured so God would not create new fallen creatures) So how do we all have the diverisity in the world? They must have evolved. I personally fall into the camp of PRogressive Creationism. It is the camp of christianity that says that nature and what the bible says must align. So rather than interepting religion in terms of nature or jumping the gun and making assumptions about nature, we must look objectively at both.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Bullfish]

Perhaps, but for once I'd like to see something on bioscience not degenerate into a philosophical spat. I think people having religion is great, they are generally happier and well adjusted. It's the kooks who take it to extremes that become terrorists and the annoying who shove tract literature at you.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MarthaStewart32]

"The creation story" wasnt intended to be scientifical play by play. But a reminder to the Isrealites what God had done in there past. The antiknowledge comes when you take the nonscientifical data analyze it word for word and claim its scientifical, that would be the Young Earth Creationist camp.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Decaff]

I'll be waiting to see video of the repeatability of your experiments. I'm sure they aren't solely based on observations. Of things supposedly 14 billion years in the past. Because I'm sure someone had a camcorder rolling.

Effectively, we did! Because the speed of light is not infinite, the further we look out in space, the further back in time we can see. We can see a very long way out, and so a very long way back. The COBE satellite picked up microwave radiation that originated over 13 billion years ago.

The evidence for this age is very easy for anyone to understand. There are things called 'standard candles': stars which behave in a certain way, and are a certain size, and have the same brightness. We can detect their faintness and shifts in their spectrum, and easily calculate how far away they are, and so how old they are.

Also, theories are proved by the repeatability of observations, not the repeatability of processes. We can't re-run billions of years of evolution, but we can have testable theories about what we should find as fossils. We can then go out and test these theories by digging up bones...

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mdwh2]

Gravity is a theory because it cant be proven. ... If evolution could be proven, it wouldn't be a theory. But it has yet to be proven.

But what scientific theories have been "proven"? And what did they turn into if they are then no longer theories?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[SleepySheep]

You're going to have to use your imagination, but, imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all.

I'm not suggesting this is true; I merely want you to visualize this as a way of picturing how God could create time and exist outside it

May I try my hand making an analogy to express what I think you are getting at?

Let's take an mp3 of a song that lasts 3 minutes. Well how long does it take to listen to it at the correct speed? 3 minutes, obviously. But how long does it take to write that data to any Folder that you copy it to? Less than a second. That's 3 minutes worth of information (or memories) being written to a specific location in less than a second.

Please don't worry about how, long it took the band to actually record the song. My analogy breaks down there (as will any analogy if you take it too far.)

That is... unless you say the Folder represents "time" and if that's the case then the band exists outside of; transcends; and is not limited by "time" (even through they can "enter time" by browsing the Folder) just as God transcends; exists outside of; and it is not limited by time even though He can look inside of it and affect anything He chooses.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Decaff]

Irreducible complexity is one that still gets me

There is no such thing. We assume things are irreducible because we don't yet understand how they evolved. The logical flaw is to assume that this means they could not have evolved. There are many good examples of mistaken assumptions of irreducibility.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MarthaStewart32]

Wikipedia has good information on theory. Maybe that can answer your question.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MarthaStewart32]

The part of irreducible complexity that gets me is where life formed out of non life. A cell must have so many parts working in order to still function. Take away one of those parts and it cease to be alive. And while alotho you may have a pile of amino acids and the "building blocks of life". How did that form life? That is my question.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[jtev]

"Somewhere there is something wrong with foo" is the begining of scientific inquiry. Deriding a theory just because it goes counter to current "knowledge" is not a scientific way of dealing with the disagreement, if a theory is incomplete, then that incompleteness needs to be addressed. Simple derision is counterproductive.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

believed now by simpletons and Republicans

Why did you feel the need to seperate the two?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Pooua]

Take a batch of fruit flies (100,000 plus). Not squish any with wings.

I think you mean, "Squish any with wings," or "Don't squish any without wings"?

Let them breed, and repeat. Do this 20-30 times and you now have a population of wingless fruit flies.

Ironically, a primary reason for breeding wingless fruit flies is so they DON'T survive (i.e., they become fish food). So, this is an example of artificial selection, as nature would not be so favorable of this result on its own. But, even though you now have wingless fruit flies, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that these are still fruit flies. They don't turn into some other species simply because their anatomy can be bred to different characteristics. Researchers have been mutating fruit flies through many thousands of generations--the equivalent in humans of millions of years--and the end result is... fruit flies!

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mdwh2]

I'm well aware of what a scientific theory was; I was curious if you were. The link you posted quotes "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

A theory is as good as it gets in science, so it is misleading to talk about gravity and evolution as if they could be proven, and as if there exist some things in science which have been proven.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[jackb_guppy]

It is easy to take the Bible and other stories of creations as "Fireside Chats". The order is about right but timing is off. As such they present to audience the basic frame work to understand the bigger picture.

What most Creationism do not want to remember, is that it has been mainly Priests and Theologians trying to prove the Bible is right, that has shown Evolution *IS* a better Therory.

NOTE: Evolution does not replace Creation, it shows the frame work of "In the begin..." is right. Time Scale issues only. Dr. Carl Sagen when presenting the our universe from the BIG BANG to today, pointed out that God is not replaced, but could be there as the guy that fired off the BIG BANG. And could even have his hands in works by setting up the "sponatous mutations" that would be required to maximize the gene pool.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Pooua]

You've obviously never been to a state funded school in the UK? Where they almost always stuff it down your throat.

I guess that's why they don't believe in evolution in the UK, right? Because, if they did, they would have to have warning stickers on their evolutionary textbooks and that would lead to people complaining about stickerless Bibles. It's just here in the U.S., where we shove the Bible down the throats of public school students every chance we get, that there is an issue with stickers on the evolutionary textbooks.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[schtum]

Of course the Universe evolved exactly the way that it did. Even if it had evolved differently, it would still have evolved exactly the way it did. See?

I suppose what you're saying is you can't comprehend the trillions of coincidences which resulted in our existence, but that's a moot point. Obviously, they all happened, or we wouldn't be here to argue about it.

Just because somebody once told you you're special doesn't mean you're the culmination of God's great plan. I don't mean to be harsh, but get over it. Your existence (or mine, or anyone else's) does not prove the existence of God.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Bullfish]

Maybe so, but that is not the argument most creationists make. Theories evolve, sadly, dogma does not.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MDGordon]

While scrolling through the replies here, and most previous articles that the debate between science and religion (usually christianity) has cropped up, I've noticed that many posts in support of religion are generally modded down and scientific posts modded up, regardless of their quality. I do realize that this is a largely scientific community. I also realize that if one does not agree with something, they most generally will mod it down. But can we please have respect for others' beliefs? This will probably be largely ignored and/or have no effect. But, I still had to try. I would like to say that, yes, I am a man of science (well, a student of science at least). I am also one of religious (yes, christian) beliefs. To be honest, I don't see why the two can't co-exist (although in truth I don't believe in evolution theory.) That's not really the debate here. I just felt it necessary to draw to attention to anyone who reads this of the lack of tolerance there seems to be, on both sides. Anyway, in order to stay on topic: I'm kind of curious what the mistakes were in the initial simulations of this effect.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[shmlco]

No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.

I really think you need to jump off the top of a building. Of course, theory indicates that your puny little mass will be attracted towards the bigger one far below, but I'm sure that in your case the results will be different.

The upshot is that in a given domain, "theory" is nothing more than our current explanation of observable fact. Newtonian physics may fray around the edges, but it still adequately predicts the end result of your little experiement...

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Magic (i.e. God) or amazing coincidence is not necessary to explain why the universe is the way it is. You may have been down-modded because it is simply not reasonable to believe it was all created with a snap of the fingers. A -1, Wrong moderation doesn't exist.

You are not special. This planet is not special. Let that sink in, and think about the reasons why Earth seems "just right" for humans and other lifeforms.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Geeko Roman]

Creationism: An Argument Against Reason

Warning to Creationists: Plug your ears and close your eyes. Don't read this webpage. Run away, hide!

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Geeko Roman]

Creationism: An Argument Against Reason

Warning to Creationists: Plug your ears and close your eyes. Don't read this webpage. Run away, hide!

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Geeko Roman]

It's fine that good-natured philosophers sat down and took their own and others ideas such as "love thy neighbor as thy self" and put them together in a book for us to learn from. In fact, it's wonderful. However, throughout history, cult* leaders have used such wise words of wisdom to show that they are the ones that know the way and people should listen to them and not someone else. Besides the words of wisdom in the Bible (mostly common sense) is the account of Jesus, and if it doesn't look like someone after the fact wrote his life and death in the way they wished it was (history has always been written by the victors of wars) then I don't know what does.

The process of giving people truths, then spinning them with your own version of the truth after that, is common. Make the falsehoods look like truth, look like they make sense. Mix the false with the true, and people will believe it all. People use this method to control others and put themselves on a pedastal - and that *IS* the human nature you're talking about that destroys ourselves. So I guess I agree with you. Then of course the coup de grâce is when the Bible uses the circular logic of saying that God is omnipotent and onmniscient, and God's hand wrote this through the authors, so everything in the Bible is true, including this statement!

I am a scientist. Every day I re-evaluate 100% of what I'm told is truth by other scientists, and I re-evaluate my own findings. I assume they're false until proven, or as close to being proven true as possible. As soon as something comes along to disprove something I believe is fact, I'm excited that humans are just a little bit closer to understanding the actual facts. Religious people on the other hand, look for things to prove them right, and are reluctant to listen to things that prove them wrong. I would be too.

Fact: The more educated a people are as a whole, the less religious they are as a whole.

*cult: The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of people that follow the doctrine.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[king-manic]

Ironically, a primary reason for breeding wingless fruit flies is so they DON'T survive (i.e., they become fish food). So, this is an example of artificial selection, as nature would not be so favorable of this result on its own. But, even though you now have wingless fruit flies, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that these are still fruit flies. They don't turn into some other species simply because their anatomy can be bred to different characteristics. Researchers have been mutating fruit flies through many thousands of generations--the equivalent in humans of millions of years--and the end result is... fruit flies!

Again, this is evolution. You can't define the evidence away, natural or artificial thats how evolutions works and your definition of species is also incorrect. There new fruit flies have a new phenotype and if they can't breed with the old ones, their a new specieis. this is evolution, no more no less. The is the mechanism and that is the en product. The mutatiosn we add in are adiditonal triats. If any make them un matable with the original pheno type we have then artificially created a species. NAture does this often. The only part you are missing in your head is itteration.

New pheno types are mutated in, and then selected for.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[The_Wilschon]

Your proof is sufficient (almost, more on that later) for what is known as micro-evolution, but it cannot account for speciation, which is in fact a major sticking point. There currently exists no widely accepted theory (and yes, I mean theory.) which can explain speciation. There might be some fringe ideas that could eventually get refined into something that makes sense, but I don't know of any.

Furthermore, what most Fundamentalist Christians (notice that the qualifier is necessary, as a very large percentage of Christians are not Fundamentalists) argue is not that evolution could not or does not occur (micro-evolution, which is what you have described) but that evolution is not in fact the mechanism by which the world got to the state it is currently in.

Now, about your proof. Not that I think that it is an unresolvable problem, but for the "proof" to really hold, you need to explain why you can ignore "singular cases".

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Life in this sense is without value. Generative chemical reactions causing by their products other chemical reactions to occur is evident even now, provided an environment that is not solely composed of those first chemicals and that are not reactive with the products of that reaction. The primordial earth was a complex environment. It was varied. There was energy put into it from the sun, from radioactivity from the planet's core, and from static charge as the atmosphere moved based on the thermal differences caused by elliptical rotation around the sun and the rotation of the planet itself about its own axis. Complex environment, chemical elements, energy inputs and 4000 million years from the earth's formation to the time dated for the earliest evidence of life yet uncovered. Essentially chemical chain length increased with successive reactions and proteans resulted by randomness. Proteans then reacted and by randomness into a longer chemical chains that formed prokaryotic cells as has been found in the fossil record. Afterwards diversification until the present currently.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mOdQuArK!]

which was that it only explained small-scale changes in a single species

That's because people who use that argument want you think of small STRUCTURAL changes, but that's not how DNA mutations work. DNA mutations tend to work with small PROTEIN changes (or small changes in the order of whether certain genes are turned on or off) - but a small change in a protein which is replicated throughout an entire organism can cause MASSIVE changes in the structure of that organism.

This is supported by the knowledge that the contents of our DNA (if not the implementation) is 90%+ similar to just about every complex multicellular animal lifeform on the planet.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mOdQuArK!]

But can we please have respect for others' beliefs?

I respect those who 1) accept reality instead of trying to redefine it, 2) use rational thought processes to prove their point, and 3) don't try to ram their beliefs down my throat.

If these three conditions aren't met, then I don't see any reason why I should respect someone's beliefs.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mOdQuArK!]

imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all.

So, in that scenario, God would be the ultimate deceiver.

What a bastard.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Dimensio]

Pick up a ball and drop it. Now do it again. Now, once more for good measure.

Now explain exactly what causes the ball to fall in the way that it does. Now prove without any doubt that this will always be the case.

Now explain why observed instances of speciation are not repeatable evidences of evolution.

Now go away and stop using invalid analogies that seem so popular amongst lying creationists.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Dimensio]

The part of irreducible complexity that gets me is where life formed out of non life.

Now you're no longer talking evolution.

A cell must have so many parts working in order to still function. Take away one of those parts and it cease to be alive.

What features make a cell "alive"? Be specific.

Is a virus "alive"?

You're assuming that there's a rigid line between "alive" and "not alive", but any biologist worth his (or her) salt will tell you that it's actually a very fuzzy distinction.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[moz25]

How do you view the fact that "creationism" exists mainly to make one specific religion's claims more acceptable, rather than be an independent scientific field on its own?

If claims of creationism are true, then it's still a loooong shot from christianity being true. After all, even if we could someone prove a creator, then it still doesn't mean we humans were directly created by this being. We could also be some experiment by some alien species. Does that sound far-fetched? Not much more than a hypothetical super-being. It just seems like one is trying to conduct "science" with the desired conclusion already known in advance.

When I look at creationism arguments, they often seem to fast-forward to "so there is a god --> so MY religion is true". I have a sort of allergic reaction to people plugging their religion.

I'm curious about this... maybe my assumptions are wrong. I'd like to hear the other perspective on it.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mepr]

Are the slashdot editors colour-blind?

No, Slashdot just have bad grammar.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[glitch23]

On the other hand we have the theory of evolution thought up by a group of scientists who were not alive when the "primordial soup" was brewing, therefore have no direct evidence, but act like they are never wrong and don't have any other way of explaining how we got here and make up something that sounds good but can't quite find enough evidence to prove the theory indefinitely and it is now believed by Democrats and anyone else who is an atheist just because it doesn't involve any religion despite the theory having huge holes. I can't stand when some Bible-bashing liberal nerd states that, because evolution was created by humans (and humans are always right, right??), then any other cockamamie story his mother told him is just as likely to be false because humans who have to guess at what happened when they weren't alive just *have* to be right despite lack of conclusive evidence. Get over it birdman. You are wrong.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[glitch23]

Who said the universe was "created"? Time is part of the universe, so there is no meaning to the phrase "before" the universe. Creation implies that there is a time "before" the universe, so it could not have been created (Unless time is not part of the universe, but then you can define the "universe" to be a larger thing that does include time). Also, the observable law of conservation of mass and energy suggests that there was no point in time with a different amount of mass/energy thus strongly suggesting there was never a "creation".

You are thinking too much like a human but it isn't your fault. Realize that there are some things in this world we will never understand because our brains do not have the capability to think "outside the box". Einstein got us closer but we still have very far to go and thinking about what might have existed before the universe just makes a human's brain melt because we just can't think like that. Because of that you can't just discount something you don't understand for something you do understand. If we always did that Einstein wouldn't be so famous now would he? You can't fall back on laws of science to prove your theory because many things may not have been "true" during the time the universe was created. Laws could have been broken, they could very well have been *set* once the universe was created. We *don't* know so don't presume to think that we do.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[glitch23]

What evidence do you have? Fossil records have gaps. No direct evidence exists. No one was around during the Creation so do you think that humans should know by some instilled thoughts of how we got here? We don't and we can only guess but you seem to forget we are only guessing. God gave us the Bible and told us how the universe got here because of the very problem I just mentioned. It gives evidence when no one would be around to provide evidence. You believe your history books and all your science books written by people anywhere from 50 to 2000 years ago so what is the big problem with believing something in the Bible? You may think we exist because of the very fact that the universe is perfectly set but how do you know that your cause/effect is not backwards and that the universe is the way it is *for* us instead of us existing *because of* the universe? Don't be afraid to think outside the box just because you may end up agreeing with people you don't like. If you want to apply logic to the situation then tell us how some complex life forms have existed similar simpler forms (the reverse of evolution) if evolution is supposed to go from simple to complex?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mrRay720]

What evidence do you have? Fossil records have gaps. No direct evidence exists.

The fact that not every creature to ever live was fossilised & found is hardly evidence against evolution. Surely the fact that the majority of those animals no longer exist is a clue? Or did GOd have several tries at making creatures to inhabit the earth and each time said "nah, let's try again", and buried them all?

God gave us the Bible and told us how the universe got here because of the very problem I just mentioned. It gives evidence when no one would be around to provide evidence.

Oh come on, that's just silly. What evidence do you have that those are the words of God? Even if there were such proof (Which there isn't), you still then have to show that he's telling the truth.

You believe your history books and all your science books written by people anywhere from 50 to 2000 years ago so what is the big problem with believing something in the Bible?

The content of those books can be verified. There's multiple independant authors giving their own accounts, and they generally add up. The Bible was written by unknown person(s) some time in the forgotten past, and has no method of verification, no witnesses, and no chance to verify.

If you want to apply logic to the situation then tell us how some complex life forms have existed similar simpler forms (the reverse of evolution) if evolution is supposed to go from simple to complex?

Maybe that's where your problem is. No sane respected scientist has EVER stated that evolution is about things going from simple to complex. That just makes no sense, and if that's your understanding of evolution, no wonder you doubt it. Evolution is about individuals and species more fit for the environment surviving in favour of those less fit. Add in genetic variation and mutation and everything just fits.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[glitch23]

You better wait until evolution actually has some concrete, complete evidence then before betting your money on it. Humans make mistakes. How do you know scientists are right with the evolution *theory*? You don't.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is a theory. Everything. That is all there really is. Facts as such get you nowhere. Theories tell what these facts mean, how they are related, why they are important if they are, and how you can thus understand the world around you.
Theories may be true, or false. Evolution is a true theory. Creation is a false and bad theory. The bible has two seperate and very contradictory creation theories in two pages, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Thus this is nonsense, and thus creationism is palpably false.

Now consider this, does god make the rules, the very logic, the laws of the Universe? Can god make 2 + 2 = 5? A square circle? If so, god could have created a world where man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do moral good. If god could do so, and did not, evil exists only because god allows it. So since all evil exists because god allows it god, is evil. Well, that isn't good so let us say no.
But if god does not make the laws, the rules, the logic of the Universe, where does that all come from? Since it must be beyond and outside god, god cannot have created them nor the Universe that has such things.
So in conclusion, god cannot exist and cannot have created anything, so the idea of creationism is dead and evolution wins by default. Beside being correct anyway.

You can have a god who is unspeakably evil, who is
the creator and sustaining cause of all moral evil that ever was, is, and ever will be, or a god who does not create anything, much less the Universe with its laws, rules, and logic.

God can be disproven, its almost trivial. Creationism is thus debunked. For ignorant people only. If you moron creationists want to force this issue, you may force science to debunk your god heavy duty as above publically, at length to save science from politicized, creationist morons.
Keep pushing fools.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mepr]

Irreducable complexity is a wonderful example of circular reasoning, and as such is highly offensive to someone who guesses that the universe was created and thinks that an emphatic belief in Atheism is much more silly than an emphatic belief in the existance of a Creator. From Behe's original book, a definition of irreducable complexity:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

Imagine that a complex, but reducable system develops, and subsequently loses parts that are not necessary until no parts are unnecessary

An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

Agreed, if the definition made sense

In fact, a working system with a non-essential part may evolve over time such that said part may become necessary. Take the network in modern business, which did not exist, was invented, moved into the military and the university and then into the public, becoming essential to the world economy in 3 or 4 decades. It used to be non-essential. But if the network ceased without warning, the "global economy" would quickly come to a standstill as all bank transactions would stop until the outage ended or the whole banking industry, which has lost the capacity to operate on a paper-only basis, switched back to paper, which would be in short supply if the industrial networking devices employed by the paper mills quit. Similarly, a working system with an essential part may evolve over time such that the part becomes unnecessary. For example, the mechanical typewriter which was so necessary for business at one time has been superceded by the PC.

But more directly, here's a more directly applicable little thought experiment, since it might be argued that the previous examples don't fit behe's tight little definition...

Let's consider the game of life. Establish rules concerning what cells in the grid are born, continue living or die based on their context. Mark some cells as "alive." Let the game start. In many cases, the board converges to a repeating pattern or static shape. There are many such cases that were first found by randomly picking some of the cells to be alive in the first iteration. Further to the point, there exist cases where there are various clusters of live cells that interact with the other clusters to form patterns that repeat. These clusters may be thought of as "well matched parts that work together." Pick one of those cases.

Now, interfere by removing one of the "live" cells, and let the game continue. Most likely, the repeating patterns fall apart or at least change, and the static shape is likely to become non-static.

A pattern/shape example of this type might have on the order of 10, 100, or 10^20 individual parts, but the shape might not have been "designed", but rather developed from a randomly chosen initial configuration that coalesced into an orderly dynamic system.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[BobTheLawyer]

You clearly haven't read the Origin of Species, as it is precisely about how speciation occurs.

(The clue is in the name)

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[jav1231]

Okay, go to any hospital and you'll see a species begetting more of its species. In front of many Wal-Mart are proof of cats breeding and producing, dogs? a new at species? Nope! Just more cats.
As for this article, "early Earth favorable for life" seems a bit obvious whether your an Evolutionist, Creationist, or whatever.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Decaff]

The part of irreducible complexity that gets me is where life formed out of non life. A cell must have so many parts working in order to still function. Take away one of those parts and it cease to be alive.

There is no distinction between life and non-life. You can get a single, relatively simple RNA molecule that self-replicates AND catalyses that replication. Add a couple more RNA molecules that could catalyse simple reactions to provide energy (it has recently been shown that RNA can act as a complex catalyst, just like proteins), and you have a self-replicating system that can provide itself with energy. Put this within a lipid membrane (which can form spontaneously) and you have a simple primitive cell.

It is true that modern cells require lots of parts to work, but they are modern! The evolution of simple cells took billions of years.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the first children (cells) -- they had no parents. How did that happen?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[GreyWolf3000]

Yes, this would make him a real jerk. However, as I said, I'm merely trying to present a hypothetical scenario that is plausible in which God existed outside of time.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

How, exactly, does your scientific mind explain the Big Bang, then? What caused it? What existed before it?

Certainly there are many hypothises. And this is healthy science.

But funny when discussing evolution, there is allowed to be exactly One hypothesis. If you do not agree with the Official Dogma, you are a heretic. Evolution Science has ceased to be science for quite a while now.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that evolutionary "science" can't explain how an eyeball evolved, or a feather, or the blood clotting mechanism, means that it is an untestable pseudo-science that does not deserve the name "scientific".

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are proposed evolutionary mechanisms explaining all of those things. In fact the origin of the eye has decent fossil coverage. It may have been the impetus for the "Cambrian explosion". I sure wish creationist arguments would evolve. Even this new "ID" rage is still watches and mousetraps. How can you possibly still believe the things you say? Is it willful ignorance? I can't imagine the cognitive self-mutiliation your beliefs must require of you. Do you really find it worthwhile?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

But funny when discussing evolution, there is allowed to be exactly One hypothesis. If you do not agree with the Official Dogma, you are a heretic. Evolution Science has ceased to be science for quite a while now.

We laugh at you as you are effectively trying to argue that the world isn't round. The general properties of evolutionary mechanisms are overwhelming clear. The specific details of those mechanisms span a large body of highly complex theories.

You are wrong. Just accept it. There is no conspiracy. There is no blind devotion to Dogma. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please, take a moment and truly, honestly try to think clearly and rationally about your beliefs. Do you really think the things you are saying make sense?

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Luthair]

Cats and dogs have long been bred to emphasize certain attributes.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should spend a decade of dedicated study and scholarly research and then join the thousands of scientists currently working out the details of that question. They've already covered most of the basic ground -- spontaneous chemistry, surface chemistry, autocatalytic chemistry, self-organization, catalytic polymers, primitive metabolism, etc. -- so you'll be able to jump in and help answer some of the remaining specific questions.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[mdwh2]

I think MarthaStewart32 needs to jump off, you mean ;)

I agree with what you're basically saying (I think it is true that we can never be 100% sure that something will happen, but for all practical purposes, we can be close enough to assume it will). The poster I was replying to seemed to suggest that some things (gravity, evolution) were "only" theories, but that some things in science have been proven, and that if gravity and evolution could be proven, they would be elevated to some new status beyond "theory".

My response is that a theory is as good as you can get in science. We can only "prove" gravity by making our theories more accurate, and never in some absolute sense, so saying "We haven't proved gravity yet, but if we could..." doesn't make sense.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[king-manic]

You have no idea what evolution is, your using a false definition to forward a backwards arguement. What evolution is, is a selection and sepciation and the build up of phenotypic variation in populations not individual changes from one generation to the next. Deformaties and mutation do occur and are the source of variety but evolution is changing ratios and mating habits not sudden change from one speciies to another.

Your arguement is actuall incredibly dumb. But I'm sure 50 other people pointed that out.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[sgage]

"There currently exists no widely accepted theory (and yes, I mean theory.) which can explain speciation. There might be some fringe ideas that could eventually get refined into something that makes sense, but I don't know of any."

There absolutely do exist widely accepted theories that explain speciation, and have been for some time. In fact, there is a large literature on the subject. In fact, having taught biogeography and evolution at the college level, I have a few textbooks on the subject right here on my bookshelf.

In a nutshell: as soon as there is reproductive isolation between two populations of a species, they drift their separate ways. After a while, the two populations couldn't interbreed even if you brought them back together. (Reproductive isolation can come about in several ways, including geographical, behavioral, polyploidy, etc.)

You can practically see speciation happening all the time, though, of course, the exact moment of the event is impossible to identify, enabling anti-evolutionists to say "there is no proof - evolution has never been seen to occur".

I have made a thorough study of the anti-evolution/creationist wack-job websites. They are dishonest in the extreme, still using the same arguments that were debunked decades ago, and citing references from the 19th century as the latest cutting-edge research. No matter how many times you point this out to them, they continue to present this information as somehow debunking evolution. I used to join in the debate quite actively, but it's a waste of time with these people. I think we're being way too polite with them, and Fundamentalist wack-jobs in general.

I think what most anti-evolutionists don't understand is that very small changes to regulatory genes can have huge effects on the organism. A single change in the timing of a single gene group turning on and off during epigenesis (embryo development) results in a very different organism. Epigenesis is where Evolution has huge leverage.

There are plenty of unsolved mysteries in Evolutionary research, but speciation is not one of them.

- sgage

"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution" - Ernst Mayr

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[The_Wilschon]

Sorry. I was given to understand that there was no explanation for speciation by a respected physics professor who came to give a series of lectures at my university. I suppose he must have been misinformed, but I do not think that I was wrong to have trusted what he said. Thank you for the correction.

Don't get the idea that I am anti-evolutionary. I am not. I am opposed to those who pretend evolution is a perfect and proven fact which can never be argued against. That is simply bad science.

In addition, I am opposed to people who attack Christianity, or even all religion, based on the ignorance of a excessively vocal few. Not that that is you. But it does describe a fair number of people, even on /.

Furthermore, you are correct about the anti-evolutionary/creationist websites. They are quite dishonest. And they have been for at least thirty years. My father had a pamphlet from one of them once during his college years in the 70s, and reading through it, he thought it sounded familiar. He finally figured out that they had copied several paragraphs verbatim from one of his astronomy/cosmology textbooks. However, once again, please strive not to misjudge all Christians, or even all Fundamentalist Christians, based on what a few have said.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call them "axiom's" I'd call them "observations". In science we make theories that fit
observatons. And by no means are these the only observations that support the theory of evolution.

Also, in the strictest sense, there is no "proof" (this is not math) in science. There is only a best fit to what we see.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to have to use your imagination, but, imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all. I'm not suggesting this is true; I merely want you to visualize this as a way of picturing how God could create time and exist outside it. By the way, despite all of the smarminess and arrogance on both sides, I've found this thread quite interesting.

If you throw reason and observation out the door you can come up with any idea to explain the creation of the universe. I could say that say that the universe was created by the stay-puff marshmellow man and that would be a perfectly good argument as any. To turn the tables on you, if you say that's nonsense, I can say, "can you prove it's NOT true?" You cannot. Anyone can make up anything and it's all just as good. I could say the universe created itself. Can you prove it didn't? Nope. In science we try to use observations to answer questions. It's not anything goes. From observations we create theories and extend those theories to regions of the universe that we cannot observe. This is the best we have. This is ALL we have. There is no "proof".

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

But please, continue with your solid "fact" of evolution and the big bang. I'll be waiting to see video of the repeatability of your experiments. I'm sure they aren't solely based on observations. Of things supposedly 14 billion years in the past. Because I'm sure someone had a camcorder rolling.

These are largely observational (versus experimental) sciences. The observations that support evolution and the big bang are repeatable. And have been repeated, thousand of times.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[millennial]

You're going to have to use your imagination, but, imagine your mind was put together seconds ago, but the atoms in your body were configured in such a way that you had a continuous memory, and didn't know you had just been created at all.

A memory of time that did not exist is not a memory - it is a fantasy.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[stonecypher]

Creationism isn't science, it's literature. Get over it.

Actually, it's social engineering. There's a damn good reason that throughout early human history there were conclaves of religious and non-religious people, and the religious ones always won. History is replete with examples, and every single major culture in human history up until about the 1400s was religiously grounded. That's not chance.

The primary function of religion from the perspective of the anthropologist is to serve as a preamble to what we now use government for - to set laws and appropriate punishments, to issue edicts in the interest of protecting the public health (food laws, sexual practice laws, age protection laws, etc,) to proscribe appropriate weights and values for trade, tariffs, taxation (christians call it tithing) to an entity which issues public works, and so forth.

The reason God always won, no matter what name (s)he/they c(ome|ame) under, was that religious people organized, cooperated better, shared viewpoints, had less internal clash, had lower crime rates, distributed public wealth into infrastructure development, and so on. The pseudoreligious Roman God-Emperor is an extreme case of the success of this method when integrated with social norms and the allowance of alternate belief systems.

It doesn't matter if people are in your country and believe different things. The importance isn't that everyone follows the same religion; the USA is a current example of the efficiency of a system where alternate beliefs are tolerated. What matters is that there is a single unified system for proscribing what is tolerable, and what may not be done. The USA will allow you to give you thirteen year old son psychedelic drugs, if it's been part of your culture for a thousand years and you apply first for the license, which they are burdened to give unless medical issues arise. That said, the USA will not condone ritual murder under any circumstance except impending death, and even that is a difficult issue in most states right now. There are limits, and they are (usually) clear as crystal.

This is the function which religion served. It was in no unclear terms a form of government interested in the public good, which gave standards, laws, reliable measures, protection from outside forces, the organized production capabilities, resource distribution in times of defecit, wealth redistribution to the destitute, deployment, public health, psychological help, moral and ethical compass, and in many cases even judiciary support.

I will not debate the validity of the actual theological intent of religion with you; it is not something I feel certain of. However, I do feel that to suggest it is literature is simply not correct, and ignores thousands of years of history and evidence. When we look at the eyes of the human and the octopus in biology, we're told about convergent evolution - how there are a ton of different approaches to the eye that get taken underwater and how the eye in humans and octopi diverged when they were still light sensitive pits on the skin, but how similar demands in the later species drove evolution to produce almost the exact same structure. This is no different: human population distributed (probably) before we had language at all; religion didn't show up until a certian population density, which happened globally uniformly around 25-20,000 years ago, and didn't really get its shit together until higher order language and history allowed a written exchange of very large documents (since the oral tradition introduces errors which after a certain size become extremely pervasive.) Written language spreads like a shitstorm - exactly how or why is still under debate - and shows up the whole world over in human populations with no contact about 6-4,000 years ago. Suddenly we can write out how things happen and why. The dominant belief systems emerge within one to two thousand years of the emergence of writing in any given area; early victors include Hinduism, Zoroastr

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[stonecypher]

It's exactly this sort of intolerance to the beliefs of others that leads to the burning of books. Science is as guilty of this theme as religion. get down off of your horse - a person has the right to believe what they want to, and your belief in the quantum model doesn't give you the right to give them shit in public.

Whether or not you were trying to be funny, this is the sort of thing that give atheists the appearance of being intolerant. It doesn't matter if you mean it; people take it to heart anyway. Quit your bitching and act like the kind of enlightened individual you're challenging them to become. Their belief system got them out of the chaos that was early mankind. Who are you to question it? It obviously leads to successful societies, and we all know where "I am right you are wrong" eventually leads: the phlogiston, the ether, direct current city grids and Nazi Germany.

So shut up, please. You're annoying the adults, be they Bible-thumpers, Quantuum-thumpers or whatever else. (Just remember, in 1900 we thought the atomic model was on giant tinkertoy. Now we think it's based on dice. Chances are, if you'll pardon the pun, the dice model is an approximation of something even weirder; good current contenders are coiled superstring theory and n-brane topologies. And those will probably end up revealing something even deeper. Reality is, in essence, an Escher painting; the harder you look, the weirder it gets. You don't understand it any better than they did, and Christ has done more for humankind than the LED ever will. Bite them.)

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[stonecypher]

Yeah, and the problem is, if you accept the first seven axioms, Dianetics makes a lot of sense, too. You can't build an argument on faith. This is a textbook case of the fallacy of false premise - it doesn't matter whether the things you're taking faith on are true or not; if they're not known to be true they're false. Period.

Oh, also, you can pretty easily raise Alf to God on a set of logic built from two false base axioms, if you try. Watch:

1) Ecologically dominant creatures are superior.
2) Anything higher on the food chain is ecologically dominant.
3) Alf eats cats.
4) As the Egyptians well knew, cats are gods.
5) As a predator of cats, Alf is higher on the food chain to, and thus superior to, cats, which are gods; therefore Alf is a superior god.

The false premises are #1 and #4. #2 isn't false because the definition of ecologically dominant is already established as fairly clear reductionist nonsense, but from that reductionist nonsense definition #2 would be valid. #1 is the kind of "yeah, so if you just accept this" thing you just did, and #4 is Argumentum ad Verecundiam, which you commit both when you refer vapidly to scientists "arguing" about the burst patterns in the developmental record, which hasn't been argued since a year after it was noticed - having records is funny that way.

So, look, evolution is obviously true, and Alf is God. But hey, when those martians show up and start eating us, we'd better not fight back, because they're our predators and therefore ethically superior, too; the appropriate way to do things would be to worship them all the way down their throat.

And also we need to follow John Travolta to a meeting. You should read Dianetics, some time: it's pretty crazy how if you just accept the first ten crooked things, the rest just all falls into place.

Rotten foundations make rotten arguments, in short.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Bullfish]

No, I like my horse. And if they want to spout their stuff they can head over to talkorigins et al

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MDGordon]

I totally agree on all three points you made and usually apply them myself. I do try, though, to be tolerant even when one (or more) of those things are not met. Of course, I understand that I am more patient than many people.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[RKBA]

Shameless plug for my own religion webpage:

http://ron.dotson.net/religion.htm

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

well, that's what happens when you listen to a physics professor regarding evolution. you should be listening to biologists.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that a *physics* professor felt compelled to lecture on evolution means he has a non-professional agenda.

Evolution is a fact in approximately the same sense that "George Washington was President of the United States" is a fact. There is massive amounts of evidence that current species evolved from past species which were significantly different.

For some reason, however, there are enough fucking morons in the world, and particularly in the U.S., that this fact causes controversy, and all sorts of people jump up to deny it.

We have only judged you as a fucking idiot because you believe this idiotic crap.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[jaoswald]

"Something is wrong with foo" is only the beginning of scientific inquiry when it leads to scientific inquiry. As in suggesting experiments. Exactly what experiments do advocates of intelligent design propose? None.

Followers of intelligent design, however, stop before they get anywhere in the direction of inquiry, because the "something is wrong" part is *all* they are interested in.

Simple denial is even more counterproductive than derision.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ has done more for humankind than the LED ever will.

Yeah, Christ is great. It's those fucking Christians I can't stand.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm merely trying to present a hypothetical scenario that is plausible in which God existed outside of time.

For sufficiently small values of plausible, of course.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[jtev]

I'll tell you what, when you can tell me an experiment that confirms evolution I'll try to figgure out one that confirms ID. both theories work on time scales that are NOT TESTABLE by humans.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[jaoswald]

Evolution by natural selection without ID makes many predictions which are testable. You test evolution by looking at current and fossil organisms and their relations to one another, by using structural analysis and DNA analysis on modern organisms, among other things.

You see all sorts of things like ancestors of whales which had legs, and modern-day whales which have hip bones without legs. You see that modern day humans have tails as embryos. You see that transitional forms between reptiles and mammals modified jaw bones to become ear bones. You see all sorts of crazy non-designs like panda bears eating bamboo like crazy, because their digestive system, which resembles other non-herbivorous bears, and does not efficiently process vegetable matter.

You can think of all sorts of great experiments in the lab with bacteria and fruit flies (to keep things on a human-accessible time scale) to measure the ability of organisms to respond to selective pressure and speciate. You can go into the field and see speciation in progress between genetically related populations which have been separated. You go into the field and verify that the co-evolution of bees and flowers corresponds to the testable ability of bees to see and respond to modified flower shapes.

On the other hand, intelligent design simply consists of "*I* don't see how this could possibly have happened, so there must have been some magic intelligent being that made it happen." It is disproved every time we see that natural systems are complicated jury-rigged Rube Goldberg schemes, rather than evidence of methodical design.

Evolution of modern species came about on a time scale very long compared to human lifetimes or human history, but left evidence *all around us* in fossils, and in the DNA and features of modern species. You may choose to ignore that evidence, or claim it is impossible to believe, but neither of those is a scientific approach to the issue.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[jtev]

Um, I'd love to see how you plan on creating a whole new species of fruit flies, and wish you the best of luck.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[jaoswald]

You know, one can google for this sort of thing, particularly at scholar.google.com.
One interesting article I found quickly was here.

But anyway, a sketch,

The usual definition of a species is a population that cannot viably breed outside itself.

The quickest way to create such a reproductively isolated population is to select for behavioral or physical traits that prevent selection as mates. Many species have developed elaborate mating rituals, for instance, or are selective about the size of male with which they will mate.

By deliberately selecting for extremes of male dance behavior or male size, and breeding these populations, one can quickly generate populations divergent enough that they will not interbreed with one another. Because these traits are genetically determined, the distinction will be preserved.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the function which religion served. It was in no unclear terms a form of government interested in the public good, which gave standards, laws, reliable measures, protection from outside forces, the organized production capabilities, resource distribution in times of defecit, wealth redistribution to the destitute, deployment, public health, psychological help, moral and ethical compass, and in many cases even judiciary support.

Well, this is a pretty idealistic view of religion, ignoring the fact that burning people at the stake for alledgedly having incorrect religious beliefs, suppressing advances in human scientific knoweldge and medical treatment, actively advancing ludicrous fairy tales (take your pick from Joe Smith's golden plates, Shinto's claim that the emperor was directly descended from the Sun God, God will end the world in 1847, etc., etc.), inciting mindless crusades against other religions and cultures, educating people to accept absolute monarchy and other forms of abusive government, enriching bishops and cardinals to equal secular princes, ...., have all been at one time or another explicit goals of organized religion.

All that, at least for me, sort of clouds what you claim is a clear picture that religion was an unalloyed, pure contribution to "public good."

I tend more toward the belief that "mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Or vice versa.

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MysteriousPreacher]

Here's a link you might find useful.

The Jury Is In. The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"

Re:This article contains material on evolution.

[MysteriousPreacher]

That's the big point. Evolution is a scientific theory in the sense that we can't say 100% that it is correct but the evidence for it is very strong. Evolution, like all scientific theories can be proven wrong. Newton has been proven wrong.

Your religion can never be proven wrong because it simply can't be tested.

Science is about discovery. Your religion is simply about accepting what was written in the Bible, keeping quiet and not asking any awkward questions like, "hey, where did those big old bones come from?".

Uhh REALLY???

[Anonymous Coward]

But then again, if it was infavorable, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we?

Re:Uhh REALLY???

[unixbum]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I will most likely get modded down for this but it needs to be stated, this is fallacious reasoning. Your assuming the state of life as of today implies favorable conditions in the past.

More information of Fallacies and Logic.

Re:Uhh REALLY???

[Methuseus]

If it was unfavorable, then only "God" could have made life happen and string it along until it could live in what environment was provided.

I put God in quotes because this is all theoretical, and I don't think God works in this way. I do still believe in God, though.

Re:Uhh REALLY???

[Antonymous Flower]

No kidding. These guys have said a whole lot of nothing.

The press release states:
"'This study indicates that the carbon dioxide-rich, hydrogen-poor Mars and Venus-like model of Earth's early atmosphere that scientists have been working with for the last 25 years is incorrect,' said Toon."

Yet, in 1953(52 years ago, not 25) the Miller-Urey experiment showed the possibility of an atmosphere containing water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen to form essential biomolecules.

Re: Uhh REALLY???

[Black Parrot]

> But then again, if it was infavorable, we wouldn't be having this very discussion, would we?

Or maybe we'd just be having it somewhere else...

Re:Uhh REALLY???

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your" hoc, ergo "YOU'RE" hoc. I would mod you down because in trying to sound smart, you can't even get the your/you're distinction correct. I'm surprised you didn't use an apostrophe to make plurals.

Re:Uhh REALLY???

[unixbum]

You do have a point. Long hours of coding take a toll on the elloquency of typed prose. ;-)

Re:Uhh REALLY???

[Antonymous Flower]

"Favorable" in a scientific context means that the conditions for an event to happen are met. Therefore, because it happened, favorable conditions existed.. do you mean to say that the favorable conditions haven't happened yet, and that life exists because in the future it will be favorable for us to exist?

Re: Uhh REALLY???

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, surely it's more likely that "we" would refer to some other form of organised sentience.

What a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet.

Ah, now, there's a surprise.

Can anyone tell me how many times these high and mighty evolution scientists have already backpedalled and changed their version of the truth to fit some new finding? I've already lost the count... pathetic, really.

Re:What a surprise

[micpp]

Lots of people seem to be complaining about how science "got it wrong" and how we should all change our religious beliefs because of this.

I always thought this was how science worked. Come up with a theory which fits the data, and if new data comes in then change the theory. It would be stupid if they believed something when they had evidence to the contrary.

Re:What a surprise

[Taladar]

I guess the "if they believed something when they had evidence of the contrary" part of your post is the one that religious people just don't get about science. After all that is almost exactly the definition of religion.

Re:What a surprise

[Rakishi]

You just defined science, good job. See unliek religion science doesn't pretend to know the "truth" but simply have theories as to what the truth might be. So as they get new evidence they change their theories. Now, you might ask what's the point?
Well quite simply the theories seem to be rather close to the "truth" (by definition really, if new evidence contradicts a theory it needs to be revised) so they can be used to predict things. For example, you can use the theories of Newton to describe a ball falling down even though we know they are not really correct. Nevertheless for many problems they provide a very good way of predicting effects.
Evolution too can be used to predict many things and a simple search through a scientific paper database (such as PubMed) will show a vast amount of papers which use evolution in one way or another.

In the post...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere is used by terroists!

Re:In the post...

[GreyWolf3000]

While I regret that a new slashdot mad-lib joke has just been created, I think it would be funnier if it read, "In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere could be used by terrorists!" It fits more with the paranoia.

Re:In the post...

[Anonymous Coward]

We must SCORCH THE SKIES to prevent this terr'ist threat.

Re:In the post...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah no. The atmosphere has been used by terrorists. Don't you recall some planes flying into some stationary objects?

Correction

[mathinator]

It appears the posted versiond oesn't mention that it was a collaboration between University of Waterloo and University of Colorado at Boulder. The only researcher in Waterloo was Prof Hans De Sterck. Just like to make sure that is clear

Can you say...

[jackb_guppy]

DUH!

Else would we be here.

Re:Can you say...

[FalleStar]

I myself am still sticking with the Creationism theroy as to how everything came to be.

Re:Can you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, are you illiterate or just drunk? If it's the latter, how do you think your god likes that?

Re:Can you say...

[eander315]

God.

or Aliens.

Whatever.

Re:Can you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously there was no Mexican food at that time.

I had one of those big burritos with the dollop of sour cream on top a couple of hours ago, and let me tell you, this room is a fucking hostile environment right now. Even crinoids would retract their appendages in disgust.

Re:Can you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationism is not a theory. It is completely unsupported conjecture.

Re:Can you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled "Creationism theroy". It should really be cretin's theory.

In the post 9/11 world....

[Vacant Mind]

In the post 9/11 world, things like this always happened.

Beer not hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

I found out by intense research that early atmosphere had substantial quantities of beer which supported life. Disprove it !!

In a post.. oh no

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

In a post 9/11 world, a study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its current condition probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many terrorists think about how to destroy life on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for explosive reactions, death compounds, and ultimately, the destruction of life.

Was this intentional?

[sam_handelman]

Can anyone tell me how many times these high and mighty evolution scientists have already backpedalled and changed their version of the truth to fit some new finding? I've already lost the count... pathetic, really.

Gosh.... yeah, it's awful how scientists are always changing their mind on encountering new data.

If we had any guts, we'd still believe in ether.

I don't think the parent is really a creationist at all; it's an anonymous coward trolling by pretending to be a creationist, providing a particularly easy straw man argument for us to knock down.

Which is utterly mysterious because there are plenty of authentic nutcases on slashdot.

Re:Was this intentional?

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. HAND.

Re:Was this intentional?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having hung around an atheist newsgroup for a while, I can tell you that it's useless to try to tell the difference between fakers and real creationists. It's almost impossible to parody the real ones, because there is nothing so outlandish, bizarre, or irrational that some genuine creationist won't put it forth as an argument sooner or later. I'm not kidding, either. I mean, one nutcase I remember spent a couple of years furiously arguing that "A land surrounded by water" isn't an island, since his crazy Biblical argument fell apart if it was.

Re:Was this intentional?

[Anonymous Coward]

He admitted as much himself.

Oil Companies

[Thakandar2]

The oil companies exterminated these early lifeforms because the companies didn't want hydrogen powered cars getting fuel out of the air.

By killing these early life forms, the companies guaranteed future fossil fuels and thir grip on our present day driving habits.

we are doing our best...

[humuhumunukunukuapu']

to make sure the late Earth atmosphere is not.

Compared to now.

[FrankieBoy]

It's time for drastic measures

Re:Compared to now.

[dabigpaybackski]

Man, that ride is dope.

Kinda obvious really?

[LiquidCoooled]

Wouldn't that assumption be stating the blindingly obvious?

I wonder what would have happened if the atmosphere was NOT favorable to life?

I bet we wouldn't be here discussing it now...

Is anyone really surprised by this?

[mrRay720]

Since 99%+ of known free matter in the universe is hydrogen, and the solar system formed out of... mostly hydrogen... is this really a surprise? I'd actually be shocked to find out that there WASN'T that much hydrogen in the atmosphere when things kicked off. This is like putting out a newsflash "We found something in the middle of the ocean - AND IT WAS WET!!!"

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[mikael]

Well, the atmosphere could have been methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, radon, helium, neon, argon, or any of the other gases emitted by volcanic activity.

But it was hydrogen. So the question I guess most scientists would ask is: did this hydrogen combine with oxygen to form the oceans, or did the water come from comets and asteroids?

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[lawpoop]

Here's a few questions to get you started:

• When exactly did 'things kick off'?
• If we presume there was more hydrogen then than there is now, what happened to it? Or, on what basis would you assume that the past would be different than the present?

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Yes it is slightly suprising. Hydrogen "evaporates" out into space unless it is forms some heavier molecules. What this simulation showed was that the rate of evaporation was propably lower than what was previously assumed. This means that life had time to form, and start binding the hydrogen into heavier compounds.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[HawkUK]

Just because a very high proportion of Hydrogen in the gases near the Earth as it was being formed, it doesn't follow that the Earth's atmosphere was composed mostly of Hydrogen. Hydrogen molecules can easily escape the Earth's gravitational field because they have a high enough velocity at normal temperatures, whereas heavier molecules generally don't. So you would expect to find a much higher proportion of heavier molecules forming the Earth's atmosphere, because once the Earth collects them and they tend not to escape. The new finding is that the temperature in the early atmosphere was lower than previously thought, so the Hydrogen had less energy so it escaped less quickly leaving a higher proportion behind. Note that even this paper is only claiming "up to 40%" of the atmosphere was Hydrogen, much lower than the percentage you'd find in free space.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[misleb]

If we presume there was more hydrogen then than there is now, what happened to it? Or, on what basis would you assume that the past would be different than the present?

Hydrogen tends to float out into space as it is displaced by heavier gasses. So there could have been lots of hydrogen in the past and as heavier gasses filled the atmosphere, the hydrogen would have been driven out. Or it could have reacted with oxygen to form water.

-matthew

Who says religion polarizes people?

[sqrt(2)]

I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database :D

Re:Who says religion polarizes people?

[h4rm0ny]

I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database

Perhaps, but to what purpose? Many make the mistake of reading the words 'Friend' or 'Foe' and accepting that as a definition. But it really is just a system for flagging up message you'd want to see... Now, do you want all those people you disagree with going unchallenged?

My friends list contains a couple of real arseholes.

Re:Who says religion polarizes people?

[CyberDruid]

Good point, but on the other hand if a guy makes a thoroughly inane comment, for example like this:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid =145564 &threshold=0&commentsort=3&tid=14&mode=thread&pid= 12188910
you have to assume that the quality of his opinions on other subjects will be low. Most likely you will be disinformed by reading them.

Re:Who says religion polarizes people?

[drinkypoo]

My friends list contains a couple of real arseholes.

Hi!

Re:Who says religion polarizes people?

[h4rm0ny]

Hi!

You're not one of them. ;)

And if I were still a subscriber, I'd look back at the comment history and see what it was you said that prompted me to add you to the list. And before anyone else chips in, my Friends list is predominantly made up of those who say interesting things or can put together a well-structured argument. Only a few of them are in there so that I can keep an eye on them and counter their nefarious misinformation.

CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholic church says evolution is a fact. Your "disclaimer" post is blasphemy!

Read, you blasphemous heretic.

Re:CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[Anonymous Coward]

A short list of Catholic heresies:

Burning, torturing, or otherwise abusing enemies of the church. Face it: the Church has never shown sincere remorse for their acts of cruelty. Hell, they've even sainted a number of the psychopaths responsible for these abuses. Twisted, no?

Accumulating immense wealth and land holdings. 'Tis rather unseemly for followers of Christ, wouldn't you say? Why don't they melt down some of that gold and give away the proceeds?

Collaboration with various right-wing dictatorships, most notoriously that of the Nazi Party.

--A former Catholic, venting.

Re:CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[BeatlesForum.com]

And the Catholic church accepts prayer to Mary as an intercessary for us to God, which is forbidden in the Bible (the whole thing about praying to the dead , that is). There are some things in the Catholic church that I don't think are Biblical as with other Christian denominations, most of which are not differences in steps to salvation, thankfully. What the Pope says, or said, isn't always the truth.

Re:CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholic Church maintains that Mary was taken bodily into Heaven and never died.

Re:CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[Anonymous Coward]

Roman Catholicism is paganism, not Christianity:

- RCC says salvation is by works and sacraments, Chrisitianity says by grace alone
- RCC has a "holy father"; Christ said call no man Father
- RCC says Mary was sinless; Bible says we are all sinners
- RCC says there is purgatory; Bible says Heaven or Hell, no purgatory

I could go on and on. Bottom line: the RCC is NOT Christianity. Look up what "pope" Innocent III did in Beziers, France. The RCC killed a lot more real Christians than Nero and the emporers could.

The RCC still says that anyone who denies the eucharist is "anathema", and then say that we fundies are the 'intolerant' ones (source: Vatican II accepted all of Trent).

Yes, what the RCC does is extremely unseemly for followers of Christ. They aren't followers.

Re:CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[coma_bug]

From your link:

If, therefore, a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false. A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true. He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket. He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.

This is complete bullshit. I am amazed how many times religious people sprinkle this kind of magic pixie dust to produce a holier-than-thou philosophy. The steps in the process are:

(1) identify something that we cannot possibly know one way or another (for example, the origin of the universe, or free will vs. determinism).
(2) pronounce some spiritual hocus pocus to answer the problem.
(3) ignore the fact that the spiritual answer suffers the same problem.
(4) take tithes from the ignorant.
(5) profit!

In this particular case, free will vs. determinism is not answered by postulating the existance of a soul because that "answer" suffers *exactly* the same problem: maybe thoughts move throught the soul in a deterministic way.

Much the same can be said for the cosmological (first cause) argument.

Re:CHURCH SAYS EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

[lifespan]

The Catholic church says evolution is a fact. Your "disclaimer" post is blasphemy!

Burn The Heretic!!!!!

What God made, we might not fully understand

[John Seminal]

I am amazed at all the scientists who think they know "facts" when their theories are not really anything more then a "best guess". And their guesses care changing all the time. God's story has not changed at all.

I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better. Out of a high school graduation class of 1000, how many will go on to a career in science? Say that 700 of them go on to college and that 300 go into the work force. Of the 700, 100 decide they want to major in physics or chemistry. Of them 70 get weeded out. You now have 30 people who will continue. The other 970 people will be better served with an education that focuses on creationism.

We are living in a time with relative ethics. We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little. We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death. That never should have happened, in the light that there is information that her husband might have beat her the night she collapsed, and the uncertainty of her wishes.

Even our most prized and well written scientists believe in God. Einstein believed in God, he was quoted as saying "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are just details".

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done, a most beautiful troll.

I wonder how many will bite...

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not so many now that the first reply calls it a troll.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[PitaBred]

Probably not so many now that the first reply calls it a troll.

If the shoe fits...

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[falser]

It should be modded +1 Funny, I sure got a laugh out of it.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[PitaBred]

Ok, I have just a little issue to take with this troll... God's story hasn't changed at all? God used to be in the clouds. Now we know what's in the clouds, so he's moved elsewhere.
And Einstein didn't believe in God. He was agnostic (though only stated so indirectly), and if I were ambitious, I would dig up quotes to that effect. I just read a book of his writings and speeches.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[sqrt(2)]

I always though his quotes reflected a certain deistic view. That god or some force set everything off to form in what ever way it would, and that god does not interact directly with people or answer prayers.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[John Seminal]

Ok, I have just a little issue to take with this troll... God's story hasn't changed at all? God used to be in the clouds. Now we know what's in the clouds, so he's moved elsewhere.

God's story has not changed, our interpretation of it has. And it is sad that you can lable someone a Troll because they believe in God.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[sqrt(2)]

So I guess you really weren't trying to be funny.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[John Seminal]

I always though his quotes reflected a certain deistic view. That god or some force set everything off to form in what ever way it would, and that god does not interact directly with people or answer prayers.

I shared the same opinion as you, but the older I get the less "accidental" I think everything is. Humans are fallible, but God is not. There is a question about how much Free Will we really have. I am stating this not from a biblical perspective, but from a scientific and psychological one. B.F. Skinner, a psychologist argued that humans really have zero free will. Everything we do can be explained by 1) genetics we are born with, and 2) how we are conditioned. I dunno how much I agree with him, but it is hard to argue against his point. Every time I think I punched a hole in his theory, I realize it is not so...

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationism is one of the worst ideas around and not becuase I am a scientist, but also I believe in God. If God had to create everything in 7 days, God wouldnt be as powerful or great as a God that could plan the entire universe with laws so that humanity could be created without God's direct intervention. In other words, God as planner > God as magician.
QED

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[gardyloo]

God's story has not changed, our interpretation of it has.

How is this different if you substitute "evolution's" for "God's", or *anything* against which you're railing in favour of "God"?

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm amazed that those 970 people don't see that all life on earth is completely ruled by Nature's (read God's, if you prefer) laws. Tornadoes in tornado alley sweep churches away, just like the other houses. If they're built stronger, as determined by material sciences, they stand a better chance. God loves science! God loves engineers! Only their wishes are granted!
And I'm flabbergasted that people deny evolution when it flies right into their face, literally (flies resistant to DDT, for example). What are they going to do when they end up in heaven: Yell at God because he was so smart that he could set things off with a single big bang? Are they going to blame him for not telling explicity to use that 3 pound/1.5 kilo of brains and use their eyes and senses? I'd be mightly embarrassed if I made it to heaven and a good dose of sceptisism had brought me to creationism or intelligent design. If you want to see God, study nature. It is the only place he shows the wonders he created. And accept they way he created things, not how you'd like them to be created or how you're parents/educators told you how he created it.

You're relying for biology and physics on one page of some 2k old book, instead of your own eyes, senses, brains and the gigantic knowledgebase present in the science libraries? A book that self-admits that it isn't the word of god? With 4 different versions by Pete, John, Luke, what more proof do you want that it is humans who wrote that stuff down? Not only are there differences, but even the authors are mentioned by name!

I love religions, because they are so funny. Their disciples have an almighty god, but just for certainty's sake, the disciples must take matters in their own hand. And they fill the newspapers, like 9/11, start a war in Irak, and all that, realising at least the hell part of their belief.

On one thing we agree: I think it is more than likely that we will not fully understand everything. Heck, I even don't get the relativity theory. But one thing I know. If you're looking for truth of what is happening in Nature, don't pick a book with Y2K problems.

PS While you're at it, start reading the Koran. After two failed attempts (thora and bible), the Koran is the latest and greatest of this best selling author. It is 100% true, according to its disciples. Don't forget, Jews, Christians and Muslims all pray to the same god (evidence can be found in the author's books. For example, they all have Abraham talking to the author.)

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[gl4ss]

of course you can label someone a troll when they bring into the discussion just empty troll reasoning("it is so because i say it is so - now stop telling me it isn't so").

I might believe that there's this over-being called Findelfunk that controls the fate of every being on earth and he lives in a cardboard box in my trunk, he also makes battle with the Gruber who is the satan - and I'd say that I believe this to be literally true and that world is 4 weeks old, but created so that it appears to be billions of years old, also you go to FindelHell if you use too much capital i's. that not trolly and entirely unprovable? well, that's the kind of reasoning you get as proof of that God exists(as a persona). if it is a troll why not label it as such? I might believe the Findelfunk to be 100% true but as a reasonable human being I should understand that the story is unlikely to be viewed as true by others and as such I should not push it without evidence(speaking of which, the sweet thing about such things is that there can't be any evidence as surely God could have fabricated any contrary evidence as a test of faith, boo hoo).

if the religion that he pushed was Findelfunk would you have not thought of him being a troll? of course you would have. the thing is that if someone is so defensive about their religion that they have to get in pissing contests on the internet then they got something screwed on wrong in their heads and oughta be examined or shipped to another country(oh wait, they tried that... now i'm trolling).

now, if you believe one of the theories the hundreds of different religions have to be correct then what exactly makes you believe that christianity has it right? it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last religion to born - all with equally as good 'proof' of their existence. especially this all is sad when IF they truly believed as they tell they do, an all levels, then they as christians WOULD NOT BITCH about being ridiculed for their faith, they would just go on living peacefully and exploit these theories to get most out of life. bible doesn't tell you to be a jackass and get involved in pissing contest about who has the right to believe what when you got nothing to stand on anyways, the bible tells you to respect others(well, new testament for most parts anyways - can't say as much of the old... it's more of a survival guide for a small community that nobody likes of). of course, whats in the bible has in the end not that much to do what is taught to people about religion and this differs vastly from branch to branch - some people are taught it as a moral guideline and for some it is taught as being literately true to every last word(and conviently forgetting to tell anything about HISTORY of christianity and how it has transformed over the centuries into what it is today, which forms a big base of how you would view the whole institution).

different churces have had different stances on different 'theories' for several centuries, some of which have later been accepted and some of which have not - buying your way into heaven was perfectly acceptable at one point, at other times you would have gotten there directly because of all sins being forgiven(but hey, you need hell or people won't act properly). the church has flexed with the times considerably and totally new ideas have been introduced as gods will to some(banning homosexuality, allowing homosexuality, banning alcohol, allowing alcohol, collecting shitloads of taxes, keeping armies, spreading the word with sword for purposes of control).

look, if some guy would come to you telling that he found some plates from the forest that are a gift from god and he wouldn't show them to you(but still, would tell you that theres some complex codes for living there).. how would you react? believe everything straight on? unlikely.

if some guy tells you that he has gods permission for a war that he got through a vision.. would you believe him to be sane and fit to lead your country into battle? unlikely as well unl

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[misleb]

I am amazed at all the scientists who think they know "facts" when their theories are not really anything more then a "best guess". And their guesses care changing all the time. God's story has not changed at all.

I've heard plenty of different version of "God's story." Each Christian sect has a slightly different version and/or interpretation. Many even believe in Evolutionary Theory and consider "God's story" to be allegorical. And then there are non-Christian religions which have totally different version's of "God's story." A lot of Creationists like to present a unified front against evolution, but we all know they are very much divided.

I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better. Out of a high school graduation class of 1000, how many will go on to a career in science? Say that 700 of them go on to college and that 300 go into the work force. Of the 700, 100 decide they want to major in physics or chemistry. Of them 70 get weeded out. You now have 30 people who will continue. The other 970 people will be better served with an education that focuses on creationism.

Ahh, so that's it. It isn't really about the truth. Tt is about what people need to know or what YOU think will serve them better. I have a better idea. Lets teach people to seek the truth and give the best known facts. At least that would be honest. You are talking about manipulating people.

We are living in a time with relative ethics.

Name a time when ethics were absolute and didn't vary widely between cultures and individuals. Do you mean Biblical times when people were stoned to death for adultery?

We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.

As opposed to when? Biblical times where people were, again, stoned to death for petty crimes? And whole cities were struck down by a vengeful God? How do you account for the fact that most modern societies today have abolished capital punishment? Really, I think yoiu are projecting your cynicism and disillusionment more than describing the way things are or where they are headed. You are romanticizing the past.

We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.

Actually, many watched in relief as a severely brain damaged woman was allowed to die. Depends on how you look at it.

That never should have happened, in the light that there is information that her husband might have beat her the night she collapsed, and the uncertainty of her wishes.

What shouldn't have happened is that the story should never have made the news. It should never have made it to congress. It was a private matter and I am appalled that people like felt you needed to make it your business. I know you think you have some clue about the situation, but you don't.

Even our most prized and well written scientists believe in God. Einstein believed in God, he was quoted as saying "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are just details".

They believed in God and yet they didn't believe in Creation. Why do you tihnk that was? Actually, the original sciensts did believe in creation until they started investigating the natural world and found that it couldn't have been created as "God's story" says.

-matthew

Re: What God made, we might not fully understand

[Black Parrot]

> I am amazed at all the scientists who think they know "facts" when their theories are not really anything more then a "best guess"

There's a difference between a guess and a model based on evidence.

Also, there's a difference between facts and the theories that explain them. It is a fact that life exists on earth; we would like to have a theory that explains how it came about.

> I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better.

So you applaud religion as the opiate of the masses, and volunteer to serve as one of the Guardians?

> We are living in a time with relative ethics. We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.

Other than the "increasing" part, that has always been true.

> We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.

I didn't watch in horror; I applauded the courts for finally letting her die with dignity.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[myowntrueself]

"We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death."

I hear you, Brother!

And didn't we both look on in disbelief when Pope John Paul the Second died, instead of entering a persistent vegetative state?

Terrible.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[MarthaStewart32]

PS While you're at it, start reading the Koran. After two failed attempts (thora and bible), the Koran is the latest and greatest of this best selling author. It is 100% true, according to its disciples. Don't forget, Jews, Christians and Muslims all pray to the same god (evidence can be found in the author's books. For example, they all have Abraham talking to the author.) Jews will claim that none of the three groups believe in the same God. They were the original religion. They claim to have recieved the original instructions from God.

Christians will argue that both Jews and Christians believe in the same God. And muslim believe that all believe in the same God. (Yet the call the former infidels and kill them, interesting). Get your facts straight. Christians claim that Jews and Christians believe in the same God because, Jesus was the fulfillment to the Jewish Prophecy. Try reading some of the claims and the fulfillments of Jesus some of them are very interesting.

And add Islam into the mix. They believe that Jesus was a prophet. Which doesnt completely make sense because their prophet was claiming to be God. How they justify this is through claiming that both the Jewish and Christian writings have been distorted through time but this makes little sense considering there are thousands copies of the originals varying by little (maybe a word or a letter) So the original texts probably didnt change. Claiming that they believe in the same God was probably a ploy to incorporate more followers into his belief system. And once incorporated they can't live it otherwise they are killed.

Talking about the same person doesnt mean the they are the same. Do a little research r thinking before you make those claims.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[MarthaStewart32]

Each Christian sect has a slightly different version and/or interpretation. Many even believe in Evolutionary Theory and consider "God's story" to be allegorical. A lot of Creationists like to present a unified front against evolution, but we all know they are very much divided.

A lot of Christians take a negative stand against Evolution because thats what they are told by their pastors/priests. Rather than reviewing the data for themselves. And the christian community is divided into 3 main sects. Young Earth, Old Earth/Progressive, and Theistic Evolution.

And most of the opposition to evolution comes from the Young Earth Creationist category. They happen to be the least scientifical. They evaluate nature word for word from a nonscientifical passage. Then when things don't line up nature must be wrong or they must find someway to justify it.

Progressive Creationists try to line up the data of nature with what the Bible teaches. And while this group still has its flaws. It has many very interesting points. (Read some books by Hugh Ross.)

The third group evaluates solely on nature. They say a nonscientific book book should have no say on what happened in nature. Hence you have Christians believing in evolution.

Each camp its strengths and weaknesses. Some have way more than others. I personally would fall into the Progressive creationist camp (#2). Things get sticky when you take a mass group of uneducated people and has nonscientific people teach them about occured in nature.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[misleb]

God's story has not changed, our interpretation of it has.

Likewise, one could say that the way evolution happened hasn't changed, only our theories about it have.

-matthew

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[Anonymous Coward]

"...I'd be mightly embarrassed if I made it to heaven..."

I'd be embarrassed to have you there, too. But it doesn't sound from your post like that's going to be a problem.

Right or wrong, it seems you have nothing to look forward to.

Before you get too comfortable with the terms of your forthcoming death, however, do try to spend a few minutes trying to appreciate how poorly science explains the phenomenon of consciousness. It's not like you have anything to lose.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[nathanh]

Even our most prized and well written scientists believe in God. Einstein believed in God,

No, he really didn't.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. -- Einstein

Or even better...

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being. -- Einstein

Of course, Christians like to repeat the lie that Einstein believed in their particular god. You're not one of those lying Christians, are you?

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[ezeri]

I realy like that second quote, it's realy something you should have read and though about before you wrote your finishing sentences. Do you realy believe we know so much more today than we did than when Einstein wrote those words? Or backing up a little in his quote, to the part that describes alot of vocal posters on slashdot, the "professional atheist", think about what he says there, it might change your perspective a bit.

Re:What God made, we might not fully understand

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, Christians like to repeat the lie that Einstein believed in their particular god. You're not one of those lying Christians, are you?"

Nice! Stereotyped!

Gotta love /. users stereotyping other /. users- it really makes for a productive session.

Besides, how does what Einstein believe change what others should believe? Just because he didn't have a personal faith doesn't mean others should follow, without deciding for themselves...

This whole article and all the comments here have just been about stereotyping other users and their beliefs- nothing has been covered in a factual sense, just "you're wrong, and I'm right" statements...

This article is not nearly conclusive enough to be considered fact- I mean- we weren't even there! We have no evidence either- just models and theories.

Since evolution is a theory taught in schools, why aren't others presented? Kids grow up and go to uni believing just one method for how the universe and everything in it came about, and how they function. They rarely challenge this, and this closed cycle continues...

No public schools teach about Intelligent Design? Why not? Is it because they aren't well-versed, or because they choose not to, because it rivals their own beliefs of evolution?

Tis a weak world we live in, when society's belief systems and science methods are based on a closed circle of theories. Science claims to be an open-minded field, but suddenly everyone starts screaming 'nananananan!' when someone mentions Creation or Intelligent Design as possibilities...we can't discount these when we count evolution- it's not fair to science as a whole...

It's FUNNY!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the post 9/11 world, the atmosphere is used by terroists!

It's funny because it's true! It works on so many levels!

In Other Prehistoric News...

[Anonymous Coward]

...After several spectacular airship accidents, use of oxygen gas as a filler was phased out in favor of neon.

This is further proof in favor of creationism.

[Tatarize]

You see, they did a lot of studies about abiogenesis and had some findings that support evolution (really a different subject). But, this study goes to show that they had the early atmosphere wrong. See, it's all mistake after mistake. God exists.

Some thoughts

[Kenrod]

From the summary, it seems that these researchers are now saying that the upper atmosphere was cooler than originally thought, thus atmospheric hydrogen escaped at a slower rate. So these researchers are essentially using a mathematical climate model.

Climate science is very difficult even when we have the actual system to study (modern earth). How can we with any certainty at all know what that system performed like 4 billion years ago? It's time we admit that this research is interesting, but it will always be just speculation backed up data with an amazing depth of variability that is arrived at by making many assumptions.

Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?

Re:Some thoughts

[codefungus]

Yeah...that's what scientists do. Do you not even try to discover the truth because you start out with uncertainty? I think you are a jackass and I want to find out if you are, in fact, a jackass. So do I not persue it because I don't know for a fact that you are a jackass? Or do I start trying to put the pieces together? Right now all I know is that you've made a jackass comment. That leads me in the direction as, so you say, "supports a particular theory". I could look at all your comments, search google for your email and see what else you've been up to. But, if I follow your logic, I don't know for certain that you are a jackass. So I should just give up and...wonder forever I suppose.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, creationists started this slander to attempt to discredit radiometric dating. Basically, so the slander goes, radiometric dating is based on a scientist saying to a lab "Make this rock look like as though it's 100,000 years old", and the lab does just that.

However, this argument falls completely apart when it is pointed out that blind tests on the age of given rocks have been done multiple times, and those blind tests agree on the age of the rock.

Let me give you a case I understand: Carbon Dating. Creationists groups insist that we can only confirm carbon dating by comparing C14 levels with items with a known age of 4,000 years or less. However, Creationists are ignorant of how a C14 calibration chart is made.

A calibration chart is made by looking at something whose age we can know, such as a tree with rings. We compare C14 levels and count rings. When we get to the inside of the tree, we can now go back 2000 or 3000 years. So how do we go back farther? We look at a petrified tree which died 3000 or 4000 years ago (we know when it died because we measure the C14 level on the outside of the tree, a C14 level establish from ring counting and C14 checking from our other tree).

We can do this multiple times to get C14 dates going back 10,000 or 15,000 years. Creationists completely ignore the process of creating C14 calibration curves because they know it completely destroies their belief that the earth was created 6,000 (6 thousand, non-Americans) years ago.

Is this a conspiracy to make the earth look older than 6,000 years old? If so, where is the conspiracy. Do we really need to entertain notions that scientists deliberately miscount rings? Do we really need to entertain the notion that scientists deliberately change the amount of C14 measured inside these trees? Once people start putting forward theories like this, they sound like as though they are desperately trying to continue believing in a young earth despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

If I follow your logic, I don't know for certain that you are a jackass. So I should just give up and...wonder forever I suppose.

I suppose you mean by that it is entirely legitimate that a person should formulate hypotheses using certain predispositions and then look for the information that will back up or defy the hypotheses. I agree! What I can't understand is why, when dealing with origins, it is suddenly unacceptable for creationists to use this tactic, intrinsic to science, because their initial hypothesis stems from their faith. Is not the naturalistic presumption that conjures up evolution equally an article of faith?

Of course, I'm well aware that, having said this, I will probably be pounced on by a thousand people claiming that evolutionism is based on a model that includes testable and repeatable experiments whereas creationism is not; it's no delusion that most /.ers think so. "Bacteria! Fruit flies!" will naturally be brought up immediately, but even ardent evolutionists will have to admit that this is a mere pittance, if anything at all. Informed creationists (yes, I admit there are quite a few creationists who are not well informed, just as there are quite a lot of evolutionists who are equally uninformed) are well aware of and happy that adaptivity quickly and effectively allow species to survive changing conditions by specializing and reshuffling genetic patterns. This is what is normally thought of as "natural selection," subdivision and conservation of the species at work! not necessarily a mechanism to promulgate unlimited change. Creationist Edward Blyth observed and wrote about natural selection before Darwin gained notoriety with theories.

The inability to produce testable and repeatable evidence of evolution due to time scales does not excuse the evolutionist from having to prove evidence to support his theory. Naturally, responses to this "ignorant" comment will give overwhelming evidence of the factuality of evolution in every branch of science. But to date I have failed to find any truly compulsive evidence that was not already nested within the evolutionary framework. Many notable evolutionists have admitted that the theory of evolution was not so much proven as accepted. With the groundwork laid, evolution can be molded to fit any data we find. In a recently /. post the joke came up repeatedly that "creation has evolved," but I'd argue quite the opposite! Evolution theory has shown itself to be able to draw back, reorganize, and synthesize any facts that are discovered, regardless of internal consistencies. I was astonished that a popular publication would write an article about the mystery of ten of the biggest enigmas for scientists regarding evolution, and have it hailed as a triumph for evolutionary understanding! Where is the logic in this?

Returning to the original point of this post, yes hypotheses are created and then checked, and hypotheses can come from a multitude of sources. But, where does the climatic model of this new, groundbreaking experiment come from? I certainly don't know, but my guess would be that the researcher picked the initial climatic conditions for his model simply because they would give him/her the desired results.

And lest that last statement seem presumptuous on my part, there have been numerous occasions where evolutionary proponents have rushed to show everyone their new gem of a proof, only later to have it dismantled by other equally evolutionist scientists. Hoaxes and mistakes about. One has to wonder why, if evolution is so well established, this pattern of unwarranted excitement and disappointment continues to go on.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you thoughts on the fact that genetic modelling (which simulates evolution) is very good at optimizing for certin kinds of problems?
How do you explain the progrssion of species in the fossil record (the farth down we go in fossils, the simpler the species get)?

Re:Some thoughts

[deglr6328]

As your sig suggests it appears that you have in fact, been blinded by science. :) Let me help. Firstly, congradulations, your post is the only one here out of the (currently) ~250 which is actually ON TOPIC and doesn't devolve into idiotic religious ranting! Now, you said "Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?" to which I would respond>So what?! This is how science works! You formulate a hypothesis and then look for data which might support it by conducting experiments. Sometimes you find said data....Sometimes you find something completely contradictory. In fact this appears to be what happened in this case as the author is quoted as saying "I didn't expect this result when we began the study," (!). It doesn't matter a whit what someone's motives for forming a hypothesis are. All that matters is that the evidence used to support said hypothesis is reasoned and valid. Second I don't know where you got the idea this has anything to do with "climate science" it is far removed from that field. The athors are not making any statment on the climate of early earth. They are contsraining themselves to the question of hydrogen concentration of the early atmosphere only. This value is not dependant upon the myriad chaotic systems climate prediction is based on. In fact it is based on only a few variables, as reading the paper illustrates. The concentration of H2 in the early atmoshere depends heavily upon the rate of H2 escape from the atmosphere. This is what they have recalculated using values of UV influx among a couple other things. Honestly this report is very exciting to me and I congradulate the author greatly. As the report says, this tips the favor of the origin of life hypothesis back into the hands of Urey-miller and I confess to personally favoring the abiogenisis theory of life on earth over the "it came here on a comet or meteorite from mars" theories.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you thoughts on the fact that genetic modelling (which simulates evolution) is very good at optimizing for certin kinds of problems? How do you explain the progrssion of species in the fossil record (the farth down we go in fossils, the simpler the species get)?

I haven't put a lot of thought into genetic modelling algorithms, frankly. It's an area I haven't read much about, but the things that strike me at this point are 1) complexity is not gained, merely a more efficient means of achieving an already achievable goal, and 2) the problems are dimentionally limited, whereas biological systems work with hundreds and thousands of dimentions simultaneously.

As for the fossil record, show me where this obvious downward and simpler trend exists. You don't just pick any spot, anywhere you like, start digging, and as you go find "simpler" and "simpler" fossils. There are some places where you do see this pattern, but the number of them, next to the overall size of the earth's landmass, is minute. And even these sites, where all or nearly all of the geological ages are supposedly represented, are based on less than stable concepts such as index fossils, which are constantly undergoing redefinition as they turn up in places where evolutionists don't expect them. The fossil record is not nearly so straightforward as it is usually portrayed. If they do exist, I'd love to see some 19th century geological studies that inductively demonstrate the reality of the column, rather than deductively demonstrate it.

The column is supposed to be exemplified by radiometric dating, too. I know I'll get flack for this, but radiometric dating seems to be an incredibly interpretive science. As much as creationists are accused of accepting the results they like and throwing out the rest, evolutionists appear to do the same thing. Why does the evolutionist have a deeper insight into which dates should be thrown out (for example, 10 billion year old rocks) than the creationist?

Furthermore, and this is a really big question for me, why is it so monstrous that evolution should be questioned? Every theory in science has been questioned! It's what makes science work! Even General Relativity, if I'm not mistaken, is still being checked! If evolutionists are really in it for the straight dope, then they should be thankful that creationists exist to double-check everything they do! Instead, many of them take every opportunity to ridicule and malign them (okay, I concede there's a lot of double-speak and namecalling on both sides, but I'm not proud of it). Evolutionists seem to have a pyschological complex: if they really think creationists are insipid then they shouldn't pay much attention to them.

It might be claimed that they are so worked up about it because creationists have such a foothold on popular opinion, and therefore the truly intellectual, evolutionistically aware of our society have a duty to iradicate ignorance. But this is tantamount to creating a scientific priesthood, which everyone should fall in line with simply because they are told to! I know of no other broadly-scoped scientific theory that is so esoteric that its basic principles cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated to the layman (that is, a layman who is willing to invest a little time and energy into understanding it), yet when an evolutionist is confronted with a person who finds valid objections in the arguments of creationists, they often resort to: "You're just not capable of understanding because you're not a scientist!" Not to mention, there are debates that rage at in every area of the academic and non-academic spectrum.. there are more scientists who believe in creation than most would think.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that some scientists have been a bit too overboard in defending their beliefs. I was offended at the person who was attacked for putting a pro-intelligent design article in a scientific journal. Anti-creationists claim that creationism isn't valid because...there are no pro-creationist articles in scientific journals. However, when someone is attacked for putting a pro-creationism article in a scientific journal, it looks like a witch hunt to me.

That said, a description of the geologic column can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

Sorry about taking so long to reply to you. Take care, and God bless.

Re:Some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to correct myself, a calibration curve is actually created by looking at similiar patterns in the tree rings of a tree that recently died compared to an older tree. See this page for details.

God does exsist, and it can be proven

[John Seminal]

If one believes God created us, then one can accept on faith that there are some things which we cannot understand - like how God exists in the first place. We have finite minds, our minds cannot comprehend something always existing, but I know it's true because I'm willing to accept it on faith.

While Faith might be a big deal to many, I think we can believe in God without relying on just Faith.

One of the first proofs on the exsistance of God that I read came from Rene Descarte. Descarte asked the question how can any man believe that what he perceives is truthful. He was asking, if I see a yellow sun, how can I trust my perception that the sun is really yellow. Maybe what you see is red, but we both call it yellow. His anwser was, humans are not perfect. But the thought of God is perfect. Furthermore, anywhere you look, people will have an idea that there is a God, a seed is in every human being. Descarte conclused that since we are imperfect beings, how can we concieve of a perfect God unless that knowledge was seeded in us at birth. Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us. God is Truth.

I also was reading Memory and Identity by Pope John Paul II this past weekend. He had a very interesting chapter in why we need God. If you believe that Adam and Eve lived in Eden, and they ate from the tree of knowledge, then there are large consequences. Before eating from the tree of knowledge, they never sinned. They lived according to Gods' Will. But after eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they knew good and evil like God knows good and evil. What that means is that they could judge like God judges, they could pick what was good and evil. And that is where all human suffering origniates from. Evil is defined as the absence of some good. And since only God knows true Good, we must live according to his definition, and not ours. Take sex for example. Pope John Paul II wrote there is something better in having mystery, rather than viewing all people as a sexual object. By having mystery, you view people more completely, not just quickly dismissing them. That is why pre-marital sex is evil- there is some good missing.

As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable. That hole people have in their life, the suffering, it is our longing for something more satisfying and Good than the choices we have made.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Anonymous Coward]

"As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable. That hole people have in their life, the suffering, it is our longing for something more satisfying and Good than the choices we have made."

Bullshit.
As society gets more materialistic and starts making judgements without thought for long-term concequences, we will become more miserable. That hole people have in their life, the suffering, it is our longing for something more satisfying and Good than the choices we have made.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[John Seminal]

"As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable. That hole people have in their life, the suffering, it is our longing for something more satisfying and Good than the choices we have made."

Bullshit.
As society gets more materialistic and starts making judgements without thought for long-term concequences, we will become more miserable. That hole people have in their life, the suffering, it is our longing for something more satisfying and Good than the choices we have made.

I hate to tell you, but you proved my point. People have been trying since the start of time to be happy, to be satisfied, and in thousands of years people are still unhappy. Yet I would place a bet that Pope John Paul II was a very satisfied man. He accepted the fact that he could not judge better than God. He accepted God as being Truth, and lived his life according to God.

Remember, Evil is the absence of some Good. When we judge, no matter how Good something looks, it could be missing more Good and we have a hole and suffer. Only God knows true Good.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[vadim_t]

Doesn't follow. Still lots of faith in that post. Let's take a look at it:

Rene Descartes says we're imperfect. Completely agreed.

How can we conceive a perfect being? We don't. The christian god is an arrogant, angry being that makes his followers suffer. He's self contradictory in parts, and in the old testament just plain horrific. So, no, don't agree.

"Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us". Yes, of course, according to the opinion of some guy that died 355 years ago, God would never deceive us. Never mind that I wonder where he got the authority to say what God will do and won't do (surely that's blasphemy), after all those years who knows what he actually said. Don't agree.

"God is Truth" - completely nonsensical religious statement. Ignored.

"And that is where all human suffering origniates from.". So, how is that not faith when you make your conclusions from a book that provides no proof or evidence?

"As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable". Very debatable. God is simply a human invention. And why your God, anyway, and not Zeus?

In any case, I disagree. I'd say that suffering noticeably decreased in our less religious times. Since we stopped believing that we'd be cured if we prayed hard enough we actually made some very nice advances in medicine - which were of course made at the cost of having to deal with opposition, and having to do research by digging out corpses from graves.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[slavetrade55]

But the thought of God is perfect...Descarte conclused that since we are imperfect beings, how can we concieve of a perfect God unless that knowledge was seeded in us at birth. Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us. God is Truth.

First of all, his name was Descartes (with an 's'). Secondly, what the hell does "the thought of God is perfect" mean?

Also,

What that means is that they could judge like God judges, they could pick what was good and evil. And that is where all human suffering origniates from.

Except for suffering caused by natural evils like tsunamis.

Evil is defined as the absence of some good. And since only God knows true Good, we must live according to his definition, and not ours.

Who defines evil like that? I might as well define good as the absence of evil. And how do we know what his definition of good is? Please don't say, "Read your Bible."

There's a lot more I could say about your post, but I have to work on a paper, while trying to deal with the 'hole in my life', my suffering, and my longing for something more satisfying and Good (capital G!) than the choices that have made me a graduate student with a pretty bright future. Except the going to Hell part. I guess that sucks.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if I proved your point by... you know... not proving your point.
I didn't say that since people are unhappy then god exists, I just pointed out that religion isn't the only thing that makes someone happy.

"People have been trying since the start of time to be happy, to be satisfied, and in thousands of years people are still unhappy"
So how do you explain me? A happy atheist?
The Pope was happy because he had found something, but his happyness doesn't prove that he was right. I think that before you spout of this crap you might want to learn a little more about how the human psyche works.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[MightyMartian]

As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable. That hole people have in their life, the suffering, it is our longing for something more satisfying and Good than the choices we have made.

As opposed to what? I mean, the misery that humanity suffered so often really didn't start to be dealt with until the Enlightenment. Christianity specifically, and religion in general, had had thousands of years to do its part, but it wasn't until humanist philosophers and political theorists came along that suddenly we saw some real interest in making life better. All Christianity had done up until that point was to be used as an apologetic for tyrants of various types (popes, kings, princes and emperors) to do whatever they wanted. Even the chief Protestant himself, Luther, had little or no sympathy for the average peasant in Europe at the time.

At least secular society gives us some hope of living together despite religious differences. I doubt very much you would like to live in the alternative. I know myself that I would hate to live at the sufferance of the faithful, who might accept my own lack of belief in their deity today, but tomorrow might decide to revoke that acceptance.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Fundamentalism is that it takes God--which represents the most ethical part of us--and makes him less ethical than we ought to be.

The most ethical part of myself believes in tolerance for all, yet the God of the fundamentalists will torture everyone who has a different belief system, and condones anti-Gay prejudice. The most ethical part of myself believes in having an open mind, yet the God of the Fundamentalists believes in stubbornly believing that the Earth was created 6,000 (6 thousand, non-Americans) years ago despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

I have no problem with the majority of Jesus' teachings, including the ones that Fundamentalists ignore (e.g. Like 12:15 "One's life does not consist in the abundance of one's posessions"). I have a lot of problems with modern fundamentalism, that takes a God which respresents perfect love (1 John 4:13), and makes Him something which is less than perfect love (Intolerance towards non-Christians, intolerance against Gays, and intolerance against Science).

This is why I don't go to church today.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[mdwh2]

Descarte asked the question how can any man believe that what he perceives is truthful. He was asking, if I see a yellow sun, how can I trust my perception that the sun is really yellow. Maybe what you see is red, but we both call it yellow.

You're confusing "colour" in the sense of the sort of light that the sun radiates, with that in the sense of what colours we perceive. So what if someone else sees yellow the way I see red - we can still both agree that the sun is "yellow", and make a consistent objective statement about reality.

As for the rest of your "proof", if you make the claim that people can only conceive of a perfect being if a perfect being placed that knowledge inside us, then either:
- That perfect being exists,
- We can't conceive of a perfect being, or,
- Your claim that we can only conceive of a perfect being if that being exists is false.
Oh, and replace "God" with "The Perfect Easter Bunny", and still tell me that you accept that proof.

And since only God knows true Good, we must live according to his definition, and not ours.

It's a shame that no one knows what his definition is then.

Take sex for example. Pope John Paul II wrote there is something better in having mystery, rather than viewing all people as a sexual object. By having mystery, you view people more completely, not just quickly dismissing them. That is why pre-marital sex is evil- there is some good missing.

How is having pre-marital sex the same as "viewing all people as a sexual object"? And even if you think the mystery of sex is better than sex, that means you shouldn't have sex at all. Marriage has nothing to do with this.

As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable.

Well, the people who are unable to justify their reasons without relying on "God said so!" might be miserable. The rest of us will do fine.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[coopex]

If you had actually thought about Descarte, you would realize that on the surface it appears that he is proving the existance of God, while he is really saying that there is no God.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Anonymous Coward]

Dailai lama is a very happy man too and yet he does not belive in the Christian God.

Re: God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Black Parrot]

> Descarte conclused that since we are imperfect beings, how can we concieve of a perfect God unless that knowledge was seeded in us at birth.

And same with conceptions of the perfect car, the perfect computer, the perfect Slashdot post?

> Take sex for example. Pope John Paul II wrote there is something better in having mystery, rather than viewing all people as a sexual object.

For some reason I have trouble taking JPII seriously as an expert on sexual relationships.

> As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable.

Yeah, things were so much better under the Taliban...

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Antonymous Flower]

"'Descarte also wrote, that God would never decieve us'. Yes, of course, according to the opinion of some guy that died 355 years ago, God would never deceive us. "

Actually, Descartes asserted that because his senses could be deceived, that perhaps nothing was real. In asserting that, however, he proved the existence of his own mind. From there, he concluded that since he was able to learn and be deceived, that something more complete or more perfect existed.

From there, Descartes lays the groundwork for the scientific method we (should) know and love. Philosophy has always been a search for truth, and as such has given us our modern machine for truth: science. And just as Descartes was concerned with the omnipotent and omniscient, scientists today still seek the truth about the only omnipotence and omniscience in the universe: Nature. The conception of God has since the beginnings of Philosophy been synonymous with our current word Nature. However, the use of God in the christian faith (written by philosophers for the purpose of morals, law, and order) has perverted our sense for the word.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[misleb]

As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable.

By all means, let us scrap this pesky secular democracy and bring back the days of authoratarian theocratic rule. Yay! Maybe we can oppress a few unbelievers while we are at it. Yay!

-matthew

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[dahlek]

"a seed is in every human being"? Most humans have a religion and science has *maybe* shown that humans have a need for this - to feel part of something greater...

But a seed it's not - worshipping trees gives one the same "benefits" as worshipping Jesus.

By any measure, especially morals, most religions lose to secular humanism as a "something greater" to feel part of.

As for the "the shit hits the fan without God", realize, that based on sheer numbers, more people today have a better living then at pretty much any other point in history, and the concentration is overwhelmingly in those countries which are most secular.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Pooua]

All Christianity had done up until that point was to be used as an apologetic for tyrants of various types

That is incorrect. The early Christians invented the concept of the orphanage, which contrasts with the alternatives of 1) being reared by relatives (no good if you don't have any relatives up to the job), 2) being exposed (as the term for abandoning infants on the hillside was called), 3) being kept as a slave, 4) left to roam the streets like an animal. The Christian orphanage was the first to care for needy orphans who were not relatives and without turning the orphans out as slaves.

Apparently, you believe that Christianity was not much different than the customs of the ancient pagans. You must be mystified why Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is considered by so many to have been a radical departure from common practice, or you know of non-Christian groups that required their followers to "go the extra mile," or "turn the other cheek," or "don't seek revenge." Maybe you think the lethal Coliseum blood sport was simply a fad that died when the next fad came along, instead of being opposed by growing numbers of Christians until it was outlawed. You must not know of the history of the Waldenses, or the missionary efforts that confronted every imaginable barbaric practice with the light of peace and hope.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[glitch23]

How can we conceive a perfect being? We don't. The christian god is an arrogant, angry being that makes his followers suffer. He's self contradictory in parts, and in the old testament just plain horrific. So, no, don't agree.

Sounds like you are agreeing GOd exists, you just don't like who you *think* he is. THe good news is that you are wrong about who He is. He is not arrogant and he makes people suffer through punishment when they disobey his laws (which happen to coincide with some of man's laws). Is he self-contradictory or do you just not understand Him?

"As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable". Very debatable. God is simply a human invention. And why your God, anyway, and not Zeus?

Because there is no Zeus. THere is only God. It is called Greek *mythology* for a reason.

In our less religious times we also have kids who decide to satisfy problems at school by shooting their classmates. We have babies who are partially born and then killed as they are still coming out of the womb. People on their deathbeds are starved to death in order to get rid of them. We have men marrying men. We have girls who are kissing other girls. We have more natural disasters and they are stronger than they used to be. We have more diseases (AIDS, herpes) that seemingly pop up out of nowhere to punish those who are promiscuous and sinful(homosexuals). Sure we can counteract some diseases with our medicine but we aren't keeping up. Homosexuality is celebrated, public religious expression is banned. There are many more. So whose suffering has decreased? Yours? Overall the world is falling apart.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[glitch23]

At least secular society gives us some hope of living together despite religious differences. I doubt very much you would like to live in the alternative. I know myself that I would hate to live at the sufferance of the faithful, who might accept my own lack of belief in their deity today, but tomorrow might decide to revoke that acceptance.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment. Secular society is trying to remove religion altogether so that there are *no* differences to begin with. WHere is the freedom of religion with that? As it is the faithful are having to live at the sufferance of the unfaithful because the unfaithful are somehow offended by the faithful now and will do anything to make everyone equal by having no religion at all. Christians don't care whether you have a belief in a god or not but the unfaithful seem offended by the very existence of Christianity (Islam is okay though for some reason) in US society. It seems it's the non-religious who can't stand the religious and not the other way around. Atheists have already decided unanimously to revoke the acceptance of Christians in society. How is that for your peace-bringing secular society?

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[theolein]

Bullshit. Look at your country with its politicians falling over themselves in their rush to condemn the secular judiciary. Look at your country with its religious bigots trying to enforce a view of the world on children that is backed by no evidence whatsoever, with the exception of one single book, and that not even in its original language (or do you understand Ancient Greek and Aramaic?)

You clowns and your persecution complex, that you always trot out when everything else fails because you're just too fucking stupid to argue logically, fail to note the extent of persecution of Muslims in your country, because that would take away one more illogical crutch from your persecution complex.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[iamacat]

Take sex for example. Pope John Paul II wrote there is something better in having mystery, rather than viewing all people as a sexual object.

I have no problem with him or you believing that, just don't try to force everyone else to live according to your standards, or refuse life-saving help if they don't. African countries have a huge problem with AIDS and they don't believe in absistence, so give them some condoms already.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Meumeu]

Because there is no Zeus. THere is only God. It is called Greek *mythology* for a reason.

Or not. Why should the christian mythology be truer than the greek mythology?

In our less religious times we also have kids who decide to satisfy problems at school by shooting their classmates.

That may be the case in the US, but not in, say France, which is IMO less religious than the US.

People on their deathbeds are starved to death in order to get rid of them.

ONly for people who want to die or for people who have no hope to awake...

We have men marrying men. We have girls who are kissing other girls.

They're loving each other. That's not hurting anyone...

We have more natural disasters and they are stronger than they used to be.

Do you have any evidence for this?

We have more diseases (AIDS, herpes) that seemingly pop up out of nowhere

Yes, seeminingly, and do you know they are actually popping out of a virus (or a retrovirus)?

to punish those who

So you asked a virus to know why it infected someone?

are promiscuous and sinful(homosexuals)

Gays and lesbians are no more promiscuous than other people. And about the sinfulness of homosexuality, I don't see what's bad with being gay, again, that's not hurting anyone. Of course you will answer that God decided it's a sin so it's bad, but that doesn't make sense to me.

So whose suffering has decreased? Yours? Overall the world is falling apart.

The poverty has decreased in the world since a few decades, democracy seems to be spreading in middle east, there's no more famine in Europe/North America/other places I forgot. No, I think overall the world may not be in a good shape today, but I believe it's better than yesterday and it will be better tomorrow.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is in a better shape, eh? 9/11, anyone?

Terrorists everywhere. People afraid of everything. Governments running amock, crime increases, etc...

Better, indeed!

"People on their deathbeds are starved to death in order to get rid of them.

ONly for people who want to die or for people who have no hope to awake..."

How can you justify this? If people aren't conscious, who decides if they 'want' to die?

"That may be the case in the US, but not in, say France, which is IMO less religious than the US."

Glad you added "imo", because you have no evidence for this, yet you criticised the other guy for 'not having' brought his own evidence....nice!

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that those muslims choose to live in that country, and in doing so, must accept the fact that the government is religiously-based on Christianity.

Don't start with that marginalisation crap. You seem to have forgotten that if say, a Christian American wants to live in a Muslim country, no one's going to be sympathetic towards HIS beliefs, are they? They won't go, "Oh, let's change our government policies to fit HIS religion!"....

Nice work!

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[glitch23]

You are misguided.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[glitch23]

People on their deathbeds are starved to death in order to get rid of them.

ONly for people who want to die or for people who have no hope to awake...

Just because they want to doesn't mean we should help them. That's accessory to murder. Just because they want it doesn't mean it isn't murder. The definition of murder involves the killing of another human being, the fact the victim wants it or not is not part of the definition. Just because they have no hope to be awake doesn't mean they aren't still alive. If they were once alive and someone caused them to be not alive (i.e. dead) then that is murder. If a burglar breaks into a house and shoots 2 people sleeping then that is murder. Just because they won't ever stop sleeping doesn't make it okay. Quit creating gray areas where none exist. It's literally a life and death issue, not a *quality* of life issue.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[Anonymous Coward]

where do you get the idea that the U.S. governemment is "religiously-based on Christianity"?

Before you say "The Declaration of Independence"

1) It nowhere mentions *Christianity*, just "Creator" and "respect for the laws of God (and man!)" without being at all specific about any religious doctrine. Getting Quakers and Anglicans to agree on this kind of thing would have been basically impossible. PLUS, anyone seriously religious would have accepted the authority of the British sovereign as god-given. You can't believe George III rules "by the grace of God" and yet claim that meeting together in an illegal Congress allows you to overthrow the sovereign.

2) The present government of the U.S. DOES NOT derive itself from the Declaration, but rather from the Constitution of 1787, amended. The Declaration is *not* part of U.S. law. Neither is the Magna Carta.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[jaoswald]

Just because they want to doesn't mean we should help them

So, let's see. Are you saying that when a terminally ill patient says "I don't want to eat or drink anymore" that we should stick a feeding tube in them, against their will, to avoid being an "accomplice."

Consider carefully the alternative, which is keeping the patient nourished until he succumbs to an ever-growing cancer, or some nasty secondary infection, perhaps in great pain, which has been artificially extended.

Have you been involved in the decision-making process regarding a terminally ill relative?

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[glitch23]

I will not kill someone under any circumstances. That covers ANY scenario you may wish to muddy the waters with. Pick it apart any way you wish but I make things black and white.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[amichalo]

I second that! It would appear he has never read the Bible, though he has no problem dismissing it.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[jaoswald]

Well, your use of the word "kill" for "not stuff food into someone's stomach" is very interesting.

I guess I won't be putting you for my guardian on my living will.

Have fun when you are on your deathbed for a few extra painful months so someone else can feel morally superior.

Re:God does exsist, and it can be proven

[MysteriousPreacher]

Glad you're doing your bit to help heal the world. Obviously, hating homosexuals and blaming them for AIDS is going to help.

I would consider Christianity to be a *mythology*. The stories of the Greek gods, and for that matter the Norse gods are just as believable as anything I've read in the Bible.

If AIDS is a punishment from your god, why are innocent people being smited with this nasty condition? Are you happy to accept that your God will punish people for the 'sins' of others?

Do you accept the entire Bible as being the accurate word of God?

Did you chose Christianity or were you raised in a community where there were other Christians? The reason I ask is because, I'm interested in knowing how you decided that Christianity is the one true faith and so, the one that you should use to decide who you should hate.

Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Rams�s Morales]

Einstein was atheist, sometimes scientist say god, speaking metaphorically. Einstein said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

And by the way, what purpose will it serve to teach people lies? Even if they are not going to study science, they have to be tought facts, not lies. If you keep a population ignorant, they'll be easilly manipulated. As an example, I'm not a biochemist, I'm a Computer Scientist, but all the Organic Chemsitry I learned in high school has been very helpful in my life, to improve my nutrition, and hormonal profile, as part of my goal to be faster and stronger. It has also been helpful to identify all the crap about nutrition and health popular media barfs.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[John Seminal]

Einstein was atheist, sometimes scientist say god, speaking metaphorically. Einstein said: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." And by the way, what purpose will it serve to teach people lies? Even if they are not going to study science, they have to be tought facts, not lies. If you keep a population ignorant, they'll be easilly manipulated. As an example, I'm not a biochemist, I'm a Computer Scientist, but all the Organic Chemsitry I learned in high school has been very helpful in my life, to improve my nutrition, and hormonal profile, as part of my goal to be faster and stronger. It has also been helpful to identify all the crap about nutrition and health popular media barfs.

Einstein did believe in God, you are wrong.

And teaching creationism is not teaching a lie. It is teaching Truth. Chemsitry is not fully understood. God created how the world works, we try and understand it the best we can. But we are not God, and we should not make the mistake to believe we are know-it-all's.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Rams�s Morales]

Are you insane, can't you read? I quoted Einstein saying that he does not believes in god. Or are you trying to tell me that you knew Einstein better than he knew himself?

That's the problem with creationist, they won't listen to reason, even if facts bite them in the nose.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[John Seminal]

Are you insane, can't you read? I quoted Einstein saying that he does not believes in god. Or are you trying to tell me that you knew Einstein better than he knew himself? That's the problem with creationist, they won't listen to reason, even if facts bite them in the nose.

Did Einstein say:

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind

God is subtle but he is not malicious

I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details

are these Einstein's quotes?

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[micpp]

Certainly, there is no way we should think we are know-it-alls. But isn't that what you are doing, since you seem to KNOW that your god exists without any real evidence. At least evolutionists actually base their theories on evidence.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds more like a Deist than an atheist. Judging by the way his mind worked, it makes sense.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Rams�s Morales]

I don't know if those are real Einstein quotes. As he himself said, many things that he didn't say about religion are attributed to him.

Anyway, those quotes sound like metaphoric speak, and the first one is not about god, it is about love.

But my quote, where he clearly states that he does not beleive in god, is taken from a letter he wrote, and can be verified:

Albert Einstein, The Human Side
by Albert Einstein, Banesh Hoffman (Editor), Helen Dukas (Editor)

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

And what does this have to do with any particular god or gods? Several statements are clearly incompatible with e.g. the christian vampire cultists* faith: "wanting to knowing god's thoughts" would get you damned for hubris, for example.

*No I do NOT want to drink your undead lord's blood and thereby receive eternal life, thankyouvermuch. My people were slaughtered by the thousand by the christian vampire worshippers, they are doomed for they reject the wisdom and love of the goddess Danu.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the meaning of metaphorically speaking is lost on you. God is not just a religious but a societal concept.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Gilgaron]

Depends on the creationism, really. Young Earth Creationism is quite certainly a lie. Old Earth Creationism is less obviously a lie, and probably just some misunderstanding. Theistic evolutionism/scientific creationism is possibly true and/or True(tm).

There is a difference between realizing that we cannot know everything and claiming that we cannot know anything. Science, being tentative, is like that. We know evolution mostly explains life as we know it. We don't know all of the details, or the role any deities may have played, but we can be reasonably certain. All empirical facts are tentative, yet we needn't recoil at calling them facts.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[MightyMartian]

Einstein did believe in God, you are wrong.

He was a Deist, and hardly in your camp. He certainly did not attempt to insert God into science.

And teaching creationism is not teaching a lie. It is teaching Truth. Chemsitry is not fully understood. God created how the world works, we try and understand it the best we can. But we are not God, and we should not make the mistake to believe we are know-it-all's.

I fail to see how this was a defense of Creationism, unless you mean small-c creationism (as in God did unknown stuff). Creationism as it is usually referred to in debates about evolution, cosmology and geology is basically Special Creation.

Science isn't about being know-it-alls, but about finding explanations that fit the data. As long as a theory can explain the evidence, it stands.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Frumious Wombat]

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...

Einstein once said (supposedly), that his belief in god was the god of Spinoza. This would place him firmly in the materialist camp, and worlds away from Christianity of any stripe, and the modern, american, form of fundamentalism especially.

What I want to know, is why your dusty book is considered to be the final authority on everything, while older, equally well documented dusty books, such as those of Marduk, are denied. You (collective) are beginning to sound like the old Soviets, in their claims that they had invented all of western technology first.

"It is the same shabby-genteel sentiment, the same vanity of birth which makes men prefer to believe that they are degenerated angels, rather than elevated apes." - W. Reade

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Chemsitry is not fully understood

And god is not fully understood either. What's your point? At least we understand chemistry a lot better than god.

Re:Lame troll... but I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Chemsitry is not fully understood.

Nothing is fully understood, Einstein. That's actually the point of science, religious people are the ones who hold their beliefs to be infallible.

Hi

[Anonymous Coward]

AC here. I posted this on apache board

Please make firefox eat IE raw.

I suggest build firefox with P2P so like when a user hit an apache server, the server will refers the clients to the various recently visiting clients.

Also, build P2P in Apache.

Make Apache eats IE raw.

Thanks for the support in this slow news day.

Church DOES NOT say evolution is fact

[Luke-Jr]

No, the Church only recognises that certain parts of evolutionism are not incompatible with the truth. Other parts, which I believe would include those referenced by this article (disclaimer: I have not RTFA), *do* contradict reality as taught by the Church.

Either way, the Church does not state that any of it is true, only that parts of it are *possibly* true.

Re:Church DOES NOT say evolution is fact

[Anonymous Coward]

man, you're hedging.

certain ideas of Evolution are not incompatible with "the truth."

the pope said that evolutionary facts DO explain the origins of the various life-forms on earth. but the pope said GOd still exists, because we know we have Souls, and only God could do that.

the Problem (for you, and the pope(s)) is that the biblical accounts do not elucidate on ANY of the most basic facts we know about evolution (both geological and biological), or about biology in general, or about astronomy for that matter.

another problem is: What does the Church know? (compared to the bible, say)

Re:Church DOES NOT say evolution is fact

[dswartze]

Either way, the Church does not state that any of it is true, only that parts of it are *possibly* true

to be fair, technically science says that too.

Re:Church DOES NOT say evolution is fact

[Luke-Jr]

That's what I said: Certain ideas are not incompatible and others are.

What the Pope said does not set what reality is. I doubt the Pope would have made any statements saying that science confirms *anything* seeing as how he is not a scientist. He has only said that it is possible that they *might* explain things.

None of the theory called evolution has been proven as a fact. No biological/geological/etc facts conflict with Catholic beliefs.

It is foolish to claim that the Bible is a better guide than the Church. The Bible is a product of the Church. Since when is a book considered more knowledgable than its author?

Re:Church DOES NOT say evolution is fact

[Zibblsnrt]

Here is the actual text of one of John Paul II's statements on the Church and evolution, if anyone's curious. It's an address on the matter he made in 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

-PS

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

The conditions could have been unfavorable, and the process extremely lucky to compensate.

Re:Nope

[Guido von Guido]

Or the process happened somewhere else (Mars, for instance).

If that's the case, then I predict...

[Aphrika]

...that the atmosphere immediately before the extinction of life on this planet will not be favourable.

Heck, we live in a window of opportunity on this planet. It started when conditions became favourable and it'll end when they become unfavourable, or we blow ourselves up... which after careful thought is pretty much the same thing.

All things considered though, I suppose it's nice that they've found out a bit more about conditions then, but maybe the title of their study should've been a more accurate:

Early Earth atmosphere more favourable to life than we first thought .

Re:If that's the case, then I predict...

[Meumeu]

Wow, that means life appeared exactly at the good time to have good conditions! Imagine if life started when the conditions were unfavourable, it would have disappeared instantaneously and the earth would now be a dead rock!

Clarification

[Captain Tripps]

objective proof -> compelling, reproducible evidence

There, that's better.

You dunderheads

[YrWrstNtmr]

Why can't both be acceptable?

If you accept creationism completely, literally, and unequivocally ("God snapped his fingers"), then why must things be totaly static? He designed, created, and set upon the earth (and everywhere else) things exactly as they are now, never to change? BS. The proof of change is all around.

OTOH, if you are in the evolution camp, where the hell did the cosmic egg/big bang come from? Why can't that be the '6 days', and from then on things 'evolved' into what they are now?

The two are not totally incompatible. And both sides are filled with intelligent people. Wrap your minds around that, and we might get somewhere.

Re:You dunderheads

[doshell]

where the hell did the cosmic egg/big bang come from?

Perhaps this isn't exactly what you mean, but one good answer to the question "what existed before the Big Bang" (and one that makes me feel comfortable) is that, if you regard Big Bang as the beginning of Time itself, "before the Big Bang" is inherently nonsensical, and thus this is an illogical question to ask.
I believe Stephen Hawking mentioned this in (probably more than) one of his books; immediately after giving this argument, he parallelled it to what St. Augustine said when someone asked him what God was doing before he created the Universe: "he was creating hell, for those who ask too many questions". ;)

Re:You dunderheads

[Anonymous Coward]

your attempt at reconciliation is almost admirable but it's totally misguided.

here's a good reason why from the Creationist point of view things must be "static", and why you can't stick the scientific "Big Bang" into the 6-day creation story: the bible says nothing about astronomical phenomena as we understand them today. the official written account of creation says ZIP about anything we have learned about the cosmos: hydrogen fusion, the structure of our planet, structure of our solar system, galaxies, stars, the SPEED OF THE [STAR]LIGHT that we see in the sky, etc.

not to mention the fact that the bible says NOTHING that a wiseman goat-herder would/could have known 2,000 years ago. nothing about biology, germs, nothing about the entire WESTERN HEMISPHERE-- which was full of interesting people, unbeknownst to the smartest most "prophetic" people of biblical times.

are we supposed to believe that humans simply purged these aspects from God's Word, or that god himself simply chose to "dumb it down" for humanity?

people had no freaking clue what the "heavens" even were, 2000 years ago.

and all the bible's tips about human folly and human relationships certainly don't constitute "divine" information.

only the VAGUEST notions of Evolution and Creation can be "compatible" in the way you're attempting. yeah: bla bla bla, hey, the BigBang was actually the Creation!!!

no, nice try. the 6-day story says nothing about the physical changes that our planet (and any planet) undergo: geological changes, etc etc. maybe you haven't noticed, but the account of creation in the bible LITERALLY/UNEQUIVOCALLY does NOT expound on any long time-scale, not for physical-geological evolution, nor for biological evolution. you'd think that god might have made some passing mention of this, since he was going through the trouble of giving ANY explanation at all, right? (i suppose he works in mysterious ways; humans couldn't handle the absurd truth; bla bla bla)

you're making a foolish mistake. "if you're in the evolution camp, where did the Big-Bang come from?" that's an old, tired argument. you're basically saying that since we CANNOT ANSWER (right now; maybe not ever) the question of where the Big-Bang "came from" or how it got initiated, THEREFORE it must have been god.

that's totally foolish. it's not a folly that's very becoming of somebody living in the 21st century. wake up. smell the coffee. science is a project, an enterprise. we have a single vantage point in time and space: planet Earth, recent times. so you see it's kind of hard to really figure out the big astronomical/cosmological questions from this vantage point. aside from the practical obstacles, the concepts and events in question do not accord with our normal, human, earth-bound notions of matter, reality, physics, and so on.

and you have yet to define "intelligent." it's a vague, useless, fluffy statement to say "BOTH SIDES are filled with intelligent people." even apart from that word "intelligent", the word "filled" is pretty contentious.

you're also demonstrating absolute cultural ignorance and discrimination: other so-called religions have their own accounts of creation, with nothing about "6 days." it's idiotic to suggest we should equate the astronomical BigBang with the "6 days", since in this vague/useless model you're proposing, we're simply talking about an omnipotent creator or a divine creation, NOT about the specific mythological tenets of christianity.

you're ignorant. i mean that in the best possible way. most people who try to reconcile evolution Vs creation are only familiar with the vaguest outlines of either "position". try getting an education, in both theology and science. it will do you good.

Re:You dunderheads

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you regard Big Bang as the beginning of Time itself, "before the Big Bang" is inherently nonsensical...

Ok. Then what existed before the beginning of time itself?

Re:You dunderheads

[h4rm0ny]

Ok. Then what existed before the beginning of time itself?

It's really a limitation of your reality model that causes you to ask this, in the same way as square trying to imagine being a cube.

Try and picture a globe with South being past and North being Future. I can't tell you where on the globe we are or how big it is without knowing how long the Universe will last, but you get the idea. Now if you were to ask me in the same puzzled voice about Earth: "But... but... what's South of South?" Then I would reply, 'nothing, that's the end of the globe.'

The same applies with Time. The Universe has more than the three dimensions of a sphere, but each dimension is still curved in on itself.

"But... but... what's before Before?" Nothing, that's the end of the globe.

Atmosphere is a weapon of terrorist U.N.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you see here may shock and astound you. "Global warming" is a creation of the New World Order, which controls the weather to serve its occult, anti-civilization ends. When you see that the map of deadly storms of past years conforms greatly with the U.N. map of reserve and corridor system to prtect biodiversity, your eyes should be opened to the fact that our weather is being controlled and utilized to create the social engineering so desired by the Illuminati. The "oil for food" scandal is just the tip of the iceberg.

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

In Korea, slashdot mad-lib jokes are for old people.

Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. I'm amazed at how many people criticize the Bible without ever having read it.

Disc. Chan's "Dragons" *GEEK ALERT!!!*

[Khyber]

If those theories *WERE* (emphasis for /. readers who don't RTFR) correct in the Discovery Channel's little spiel on dragons (Though I say for now that it's purely speculation,) then dragons, with having such a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, could have actually stored hydrogen gas in some extra set of lungs, used platinum as the ignition source (How that worked I never fully understood) in order to breathe fire.

*BUT* what I would not understand, is that if the atmosphere then, being 40% hydrogen - the lightest gas we know of - How would beasts that heavy be able to fly through such a thin atmosphere without a massive load of difficulty???

Who needs stickers?

[mattbot 5000]

Who needs stickers, just mod it down. The Bible, -1 Overrated since time immemorial.

Re:Who needs stickers?

[wootest]

I'm pretty sure the Old Testament is flamebait as well.

GO CANADA

[WizardRahl]

I AM CANADIAN!

In other news...

[Chrax]

Orbital radius favorable for sustaining life.

"A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably maintained an ideal distance from the Sun, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that the Earth stayed approximately 1 AU away from the sun, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life."

Okay then.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if accurate, what would that say about our current models of how Mars lost its atmosphere?

Re:Okay then.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the theory was that mars' atmosphere was blown away by the solar wind (because it lacks a magnetic field)?

Of course, I could be talking out my ass here.

Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[Luke-Jr]

First off, note that to say Catholics pray to Mary, the definition being used for prayer must be "making a request" or "spiritual communication" for the statement to be true at all. Catholics do *not* worship Mary.

Regarding communication with the dead: Mary and the saints are alive in Heaven. If you mean that they are 'dead' by not being in the physical world, then God Himself is also dead in the same sense.

The Pope has been given authority by Christ Himself as the rock upon which the Church is built (Jesus founds the Catholic Church on His rock/Peter in Matthew 16:18-19). No, this doesn't mean everything the Pope says or does is correct or true, but it does give him the authority the lead the Church.

Now, on the topic of unbiblical teachings, Protestant beliefs are quite fallicious:
- Protestants reject Jesus's teaching that the bread and wine becomes his actual body and blood. People took it literally when Jesus said it was so and Jesus did not say "no, no... I meant that symbolically"
- Protestants believe that the Bible is the sole source of theological truth. The Bible itself opposes this view and points people toward the Church.

In addition, the original protestant (Martin Luther) also originated the idea of anti-semitism. The WWII holocaust might never had occured if Martin Luther had not rebelled against the Church. Is protestantism worth the lives taken by WWII?

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[ezeri]

Oh dear, it seems slashdot has bred a new type breed of troll. And unfortunately your not the only one of its kind.

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that all the people killed by the inquisition thought the church was justified to execute them on unfounded accusations.

Not to mention the other bullshit like the crusades.

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[AtariAmarok]

"The Pope has been given authority by Christ Himself..."

No more and no less than any other person. The Pope is* just a guy. The office of Pope is not anything Biblical.

(* = the past ones, and the next one and those after)

"The Bible itself opposes this view and points people toward the Church...."

....of which the Catholic organization is just one sect.

"In addition, the original protestant (Martin Luther) also originated the idea of anti-semitism"

This is so historically incorrect that it defies description. Antisemitism goes at least as far back as the Romans. There is also Mohammad (the Muslim founder) who also hated Jews and wiped out a lot of them. Both of these are prior to Martin Luther.

"The WWII holocaust might never had occured if Martin Luther had not rebelled against the Church"

Luther rebelled against one sect, not Christ's Church.

" Is protestantism worth the lives taken by WWII? Why not ask the Pope of the time, Pius XII? "For much of the war, he maintained a public front of indifference and remained silent while German atrocities were committed".

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[AtariAmarok]

Not so new. I've seen many such trolls. This is the "Christian" who says that his sect is the only real Christians, and the rest are not. The problem with such trolls, is that unlike the typical sillly slashdot (GNAA, etc) troll, these trolls can sometimes be deadly, even in recent history.

Those in the Catholic sect are sometimes on the receiving end of Christian sect-on-sect violence. During the 1990s, Greek Orthodox Serbia invaded Roman Catholic Croatia and slaughtered many thousands of Croats for being in the wrong religion. In the northwestern United Kingdom, the Catholic minority is basically trying to crush the Protestant majority.

I won't even go into much older history, when Catholics ordered hundreds of thousands of Christians tortured and executed for "heresy" which would sometimes be no more than rejecting some of the RCC's traditions which contradicted the Bible. Not to mention what happened to non-Christians in their midst.

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[AtariAmarok]

"First off, note that to say Catholics pray to Mary, the definition being used for prayer must be "making a request" or "spiritual communication" for the statement to be true at all. Catholics do *not* worship Mary."

It is clear that in this instance, she is worshipped as a minor deity, or a demigod. Just as the Romans worshipped minor gods much less than they worshipped major gods. Merely by praying to someone/something, you are treating him/her/it as a God.

"Protestants believe that the Bible is the sole source of theological truth. The Bible itself opposes this view and points people toward the Church."

But not to any one sect in particular...

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[Luke-Jr]

No, Catholics ask Mary to pray to God for them just as you might ask your close friend to do so. Some people define prayer as including this. So long as prayer is defined as a form of worship, Catholics *do not* pray to Mary.

Jesus founded the Catholic Church and obviously references to the Church would be to the Catholic Church, not some sect teaching lies. The Catholic Church has various Rites which hold varying traditions while still holding the same correct doctrines.
The first protestants only came around sometime in the 1600s following Martin Luther. These sects are heretical and deny important truths laid out by Jesus.

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[Luke-Jr]

Jesus gave Peter the position of the first Pope in Matthew 16:18-19, as I said:

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The entire reason Simon's name changed to Peter (which is the same word as "rock" in the original text) was to reflect on his position.
If you need more lengthly proofs that Jesus meant to make Peter the first Pope, there is a good amount of information at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

The Catholic Church is the *only* Church Jesus Himself founded and has always been the only Church faithful to the truth. Luther rebelled against the one true Church and in doing so encouraged many false teachings.

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[AtariAmarok]

Which sect is obeying that a bishop/priest/elder "must be the husband of one wife" ? (1 Timothy 3:2)

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[AtariAmarok]

""And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church"

It is quite a stretch to pull the papacy out of that, and there are other just as valid interepretations that are not as self-serving.

"The Catholic Church is the *only* Church Jesus Himself founded "

This is no different from anyone in any sect saying that their sect is the only real one, and the others are not.

"Luther rebelled against the one true Church"

No, he merely rebelled against the dominant sect.

"and in doing so encouraged many false teachings."

Who taught the selling of "indulgences"? Luther's sect, or the one he broke from?

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[Luke-Jr]

It's not a stretch at all; it's the only logical conclusion. Jesus started the Catholic Church by making Peter the first leader. "and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it." -- so that same Church will never completely be destroyed.

The difference in the Catholic Church's claim to be the real one is that it is the only Church to have existed long enough (since before Jesus's death) to have been the one Jesus started.

Luther did rebel against the Church. At his time, there were no other major branches of heretics until he created the first one.

No matter how much of the Church is infected by corruption, a small part will always prevail. The Church needed reform in areas when/where they sold 'indulgences' just as a lot of it needs reform today. The solution is *not* to introduce heresy and create a new sect, but to solve the problems with the true Church.

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[Luke-Jr]

If you mean having married priests, I've got news for you: The Catholic Church has many priests that are married.
It is merely the western Church that prefers to have a vow of celibacy included with many orders.

If you are claiming that priests *must* be married, you forget that in being ordained, the priests are in effect marrying the Church herself.

Re:Protestants hold the unbiblical beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

> No matter how much of the Church is infected
> by corruption, a small part will always
> prevail.

What if the last Catholic is infected by corruption? Will his talkative but pious thumb carry on Christ's true teachings?

This is going to disturb Lee Strobel upset

[Anonymous Coward]

One of Lee Strobel's huge anti-abiogenesis claims is that the early Earth atmosphere was nothing like the atmosphere those 1950s experiments that created amino acids was like. This article just destroyed his strongest creationist argument. I wonder what he will say.

Re:This is going to disturb Lee Strobel upset

[MightyMartian]

The whole argument was dismantled when we began to discover that complex organic molecules could form in all sorts of environments. Don't worry, Creationists aren't bound by scientific arguments. I mean, you still hear liars like Kent Hovind running around repeating the old moon dust nonsense. Once a claim has entered the Creationist's toolkit, it never leaves no matter how many times it is discredited.

Re:This is going to disturb Lee Strobel upset

[Pooua]

This article just destroyed his strongest creationist argument.

That's a pretty strong statement for a mere simulation. Are we going back to the mythology of the ancient Greek "scientists," who believed that truth could only be found by reason, not by experiments? If not, then we need some experimental results showing that early Earth had a reducing atmosphere. It's nice that these models say our atmosphere was mostly hydrogen; but, if they are correct, there had to have been a physical record created by this environment. There must be an explanation for the lack of evidence supporting the model in the rocks we examine. Otherwise, the UW theory is just wishful thinking that you have latched onto too eagerly.

Re:This is going to disturb Lee Strobel upset

[Xyrus]

In all likelyhood, any physical record of this timeframe has been destroyed by the geophysical processes of Earth.

The oldest known specimen of Earth is a small piece of zircon crystal dated to about 4.4 billion years. If scientist are off just a littl about the age of Earth, then this atmospheric dissipation would have happened even before that speck of dust was created.

One of the biggest obstacles for studying the Earth's beginnings has always been Earth itself. :)

~X~

Re:This is going to disturb Lee Strobel upset

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some really quite pathetic, intellectually challenged moderators around here. I mean, anybody mentally retarded enough to actually support Kent Hovind would be better served cleaning out greasetraps at McDonalds.

Re:This is going to disturb Lee Strobel upset

[MarthaStewart32]

Everyone likes to believe that they belief system is the strongest. Thus having scientific arguements used by people who dont know science often ends in catastrophy. And while many christians Frankly fail at using scientific arugements that is simply uneducation of the masses. Some christian somewhere out there might have heard the "proof" in a sermon somewhere. Which came from a Speaker who had no scientific background and made something up. The whole crowd thinks it logical and that the speaker wouldnt lie to them. So therefore it must be a true statement. This has more to do with the gulliblity of the masses and less to do with what Christianity is based on. Just because some people are morons doesnt mean that what they believe in isnt true.

Re:This is going to disturb Lee Strobel upset

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on.

Look to folks like Behe, Demski, Strobel, etc., and you'll quickly see how they can support an argument very well.

Anyone can argue a point.

Argh

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does evolution have to do with the atmosphere of the Earth? What are you religious retards doing on Slashdot, anyway? Shouldn't you be out roughing up some blacks or homosexuals?

Re: Theory Vs. Fact Vs. WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

interestingly evolution as a whole is a framework of notions about the origins and development of all the observable forms of the earth/universe.

the framework is based on very simple facts. (the facts would be a digression here)

on the other hand, Creation as told in the bible contains assertions (and implications) that are patently false: there is no firmament. the moon isn't a "lamp". the SUN is actually not any different than the stars.

those aren't just quibbles, although fundamentalists will treat them as such, and embarrass themselves in trying to make sense of the bible (for example by calling it all poetic, rather than literal; where's the biblical/divine declaration of the Poetic Mode??).

apart from the conspicuous passages of Genesis, (and apart from the outright contradictions contained throughout the bible), there are very simple and amusing questions we can ask ourselves: what language was god speaking when he said "let there be light" ?

it's a pretty poignant question. what dialect? (it would be amazing if any dialect remained the same for 600 years, let alone 6,000 years or whatever)

other good questions concern man being made in God's image. GOd made man in his image. men and women have some interesting.... plumbing.... that allows them to (be fruitful and) multiply. did god just pull the whole scheme out of a hat?

it's bizarre to consider that if the divine accounts of creation are true, God went with the whole penis/vagina/insertion/friction method, instead of just some hand-holding and spontaneous pregnancy.

think about it.

Theology is fine. (some) christians are great. i love em. my point here isn't even that creation is stupid, BUT that the biblical account was written by some guy(s) who weren't very smart. in fact, they were idiots.

yes, the writers were idiots. but this picture changes once we recognize that the texts/narratives that form the Bible we know underwent their own evolution throughout prebiblical times.... obvioiusly becoming very convoluted and idiotic...

Don't confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution

[mathmathrevolution]

This article is about abiogenesis NOT evolution. Evolution is about natural selection ultimately can cause species to change into different species over enough time. Abiogenesis is about how life can be created from non-life. While creationists frequently convolute these (and other) theories, scientists should adhere to more rigorous standards.

If this is true...

[ericdfields]

does that mean that Humanity could have been an accident of nature? Makes too much sense these days... Humans = bug; bug != feature

Re:Disc. Chan's "Dragons" *GEEK ALERT!!!*

[Black Parrot]

> *BUT* what I would not understand, is that if the atmosphere then, being 40% hydrogen - the lightest gas we know of - How would beasts that heavy be able to fly through such a thin atmosphere without a massive load of difficulty???

They could wait and evolve after we had an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere.

"Favorable" to life

[jajawarrior]

Regardless of how "favorable" this supposed conditions are, the fact remains - Life does not come from non-life, and never has. Its a law of science, and something that evolutionists continue to struggle mightily to overcome. For those with questions regarding Creation Science, I would recommend http://www.creationscience.com/ I would also recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" for the legions of cynical /. visitors I seem to see - there ARE legitimate, real reasons to hold Christianity as a true and personal belief system. Besides, why exactly is it that you believe in no God (for you atheists). Its ultimately a step of faith, just as is Christianity. What verifiable and objective facts can we see to verify atheism? -jajawarrior

Re:"Favorable" to life

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a really weird train of "thought" you have there, friend. I weep for you, you have a brain and refuse to use it. It's a waste.

Re:"Favorable" to life

[UlfGabe]

im sorry but if you would please read up on your history of chemistry?

Urea was discovered by Hilaire Rouelle in 1773. It was the first organic compound to be artificially synthesized from inorganic starting materials, in 1828 by Friedrich Woehler, who prepared it by the reaction of potassium cyanate with ammonium sulfate. This disproved the theory that the chemicals of living organisms are fundamentally different from inanimate matter and started the discipline of organic chemistry.

Science has no laws, there are only theories, theories which can be disproved.

If a very unlikely occurrance were to happen tommorow, (lets say you were floating) then the theory of gravity might be wrong, I don't really know what would consititute a violation of the theory of gravity

G=g m1 m2 / r^2

And supposing that life could not come from non-life there is still the spore theory, and it could have been happening forever.

Supposing life could come from non life will be a much more realistic fact if on some distant planet (europa, Titan, mars, venus) some organism showing the characteristics of life was found.

In addition, I have a question to ask you, why would "God" decide to put Archea that live 4.5 km below the earths surface into existence. Or the Platypus, that one is just a big old puzzle for me.

Re:"Favorable" to life

[moz25]

That's an odd line of thinking. The opposite of being religious is not being atheistic. I consider myself fairly agnostic... I just have to reject the mainstream religions as false. If there is indeed a god out there, I believe he/she/it is not properly represented by today's religions.

Regarding Lee Strobel.. unfortunately he did not interview any critics or give a balanced account of what 'the other side' was thinking. Yes, if you only hear arguments in favour of one view, it will be quite convincing... especially if you already hold that view.

Re:"Favorable" to life

[daveb]

>Life does not come from non-life, and never has.
>Its a law of science, and something that >evolutionists continue to struggle mightily to overcome.

typical religious nutty logic here. First off - what is the law? who proved it?

the "typical" aspect is the superstitious one posits something as fact that is completly unknown (or sometimes downright untrue). They then use that fact/assumption to prove ... well pretty much anything.

it is truely sad that so much of this discussion is about myth and legends. It stunns me that we are still arguing about zeus, thoth, Eliki or their decendants.

I guess most people can't face the fact that when they grow up and leave home they are truely on their own - and that you weren't "put" here for some purpose. There is no purpose - there's just what's past, what is and what you COULD do/be ... grow up.

Re:"Favorable" to life

[jajawarrior]

I think you have some strong misconceptions regarding life.

"Organic" chemicals and compounds are found all over. But chemicals and compounds do not constitute life, and I would love to see even ONE example of life coming from non-life.

Pasteur did many experiments on spontaneous generation - which was obviously proved false.

Just as gravity has never been observed false, and thus is a law, the same is true for life coming from non-life. It has NEVER happened.

"In addition, I have a question to ask you, why would "God" decide to put Archea that live 4.5 km below the earths surface into existence. Or the Platypus, that one is just a big old puzzle for me."

I fail to see how this is relevant to the matter at hand at all. Why not create those creatures? Why create anything at all? Ultimately to show God's glory.

-jajawarrior

Re:"Favorable" to life

[Anonymous Coward]

The origin of life from a pre-biotic environment is a gradual process. There isn't some magical step at which it transitions to life. The pre-biotic systems become more "life-like" (ie. more complex and more biological) over time.

And it's a process that likely takes many million years. We can demonstrate the mechanisms that drive this process, but all advanced science relies on inferences from the limited observations we can make.

Are you really arguing that demonstration of organizing mechanisms, confirmation of the presense and action of the mechanisms in the early Earth environment, and congruence of observed events and novel theoretical predictions derived from the action of those mechanisms some how does not constitute a legitimate science or sound theory for the origin of life?

Re:"Favorable" to life

[jajawarrior]

"The origin of life from a pre-biotic environment is a gradual process. There isn't some magical step at which it transitions to life. The pre-biotic systems become more "life-like" (ie. more complex and more biological) over time."

Ah, the god of evolutionists = time. It's ridiculous to assume that given enough time, life can come from non-life. It has never been observed, and there is no evidence that suggests things become more complex over time, rather entropy and decay is the rule. Things tend toward disorder rather than order.

"Are you really arguing that demonstration of organizing mechanisms, confirmation of the presense and action of the mechanisms in the early Earth environment, and congruence of observed events and novel theoretical predictions derived from the action of those mechanisms some how does not constitute a legitimate science or sound theory for the origin of life?"

Yes, I am saying that I think many, many aspects of evolution is flawed, starting with its assertion that life somehow comes from non-life. Even in the few experiements we've seen where organic compounds have been created (though no one knows if this is what the early earth was really like), they were all done by INTELLIGENT scientists, which is a major distiniction given evolutionists maintain it was originally done completely randomly.

-jajawarrior

Caramilk bar holds secret to life on earth

[Quirk]

One of the key question underlying studies of life on earth is simply how did "life", RNA or DNA based, come to be encapsulated in the cell membrane? Studies of prebiotic life tend to skip over the issue. Dr.S. Kauffman, author of books on Complexity has offered a few alternative scenarios but the question of how life came to have a place to call 127.0.0.1 remains open to conjecture. Non-equilibrium open systems giving rise to complexity have held out alot of promise to answering basic questions arising from studies of prebiotic life but the question remains how do they get the caramilk inside a caramilk bar.

Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[Pooua]

"I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again," Toon said. "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept."

(From the UW article)

I have a question for the abiogenesis advocates on this forum. When was Miller's experiment NOT relevant? Toon says the experiments are relevant *again*; that implies they weren't relevant at some time in the past. When was that?

Of course, I don't ask the question without knowing the answer. I also ask it because it points out a significant flaw in the way we teach abiogenesis theory. The answer to my question is, Miller's experiments were rendered moot several DECADES ago, when all the models pointed to early Earth having an oxygenating atmosphere. No one ever has come up with a model or scenario that would give early Earth the required reducing atmosphere that would make Miller's experiment relevant. But, every time I have pointed this out to evolutionists/abiogenesis advocates over the last 2 decades (and I have done so several times in the last 20 years), they have uniformly denied its significance.

This continues the characteristic that I find universally in the evolutionary community. They refuse to acknowledge any flaws in their accepted evolutionary model until after they believe they have a solution to those flaws.

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[deglr6328]

Jeez who knew /. was crawling with so many anti-science anti-intellectualist nocluebies. sad. Ever think that maybe you're shot down "every time" you have pointed out your pet theory to "evolutionists" is possibly because you're dead wrong? Please cite a scientific source which says "early Earth had an oxygenating atmosphere". There are none because its preposterous. Just about all the oxygen in the atmosphere came from autotrophic organisms. ie. PLANTS!! It can only have accumulated after life appeared. The data on O2 concentration in the atmosphere of ancient earth is WELL constrained. Jeez, the arrogance of some people....

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[Pooua]

Ever think that maybe you're shot down "every time" you have pointed out your pet theory to "evolutionists" is possibly because you're dead wrong?

You prove my point.

Please cite a scientific source which says "early Earth had an oxygenating atmosphere". There are none because its preposterous. Just about all the oxygen in the atmosphere came from autotrophic organisms. ie. PLANTS!! It can only have accumulated after life appeared. The data on O2 concentration in the atmosphere of ancient earth is WELL constrained [columbia.edu].

OK, bright guy, tell me this, then: Why would the topic study be such a big deal if the scientific community generally agreed that the early Earth atmosphere was depleted of oxygen? Why does one news report state that this study, "could lead to a revival of interest in an experiment conducted by University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller in 1953," if there were never a reason to question the relevance of Miller's experiment? What would have led people to question the relevance of Miller's experiment?

You are simply another person who refuses to acknowledge weaknesses in evolutionary/abiogenesis theory, even when it is presented in front of by the scientists you study.

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[deglr6328]

"OK, bright guy, tell me this, then: Why would the topic study be such a big deal if the scientific community generally agreed that the early Earth atmosphere was depleted of oxygen? Why does one news report [earthtimes.org] state that this study, "could lead to a revival of interest in an experiment conducted by University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller in 1953," if there were never a reason to question the relevance of Miller's experiment? What would have led people to question the relevance of Miller's experiment?"

DUH?? READ THE ARTICLE!! The news here is a reconsideration of the concentration of H2 in the early atmosphere. Previously it was thought to be very little because of the assumed high removal rate of H2 from the early atmosphere. Tian et. al. have shown here that this assumption was TWO orders of magnitude off!!! (ie. BIG!) ad the concentration was probably much higher. Because this re-establishes a strongly reducing early atmosphere therefore Urey-Miller is once again very relevant! None of this has anything to do with O2 concentratio of early earth which thermodynamically must have been allowed only at extremely low concentrations. (ie. PPM ....Maybe)

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[Pooua]

Because this re-establishes a strongly reducing early atmosphere therefore Urey-Miller is once again very relevant!

Which leads back to my original question, when was the Urey-Miller experiment not relevant? Or, more precisely, when would you abiogenesis advocates have admitted that it was not relevant? Because, as I stated, I haven't found any of you in the last 20 years who would make that admission.

None of this has anything to do with O2 concentratio of early earth

I never said anything about oxygen. I said oxygenating. All the direct evidence we have of the early Earth's atmosphere is that it has always been oxygenating, not reducing.

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

Miller's experiment is still not relevent.

First, it requires a hydrogen concentration greater than 90% for it to work. The (up to) 40% mentioned in the article is STILL not anywhere near the 90% required for Miller's experiment to be relevent.

Second, Miller's experiment only creates a few simple proteins. It does not create life and it never has. There is STILL no answer for how these proteins formed to become a living organism with all the necessary functionality to burn energy and reproduce. Miller celebrated the formation of simple bricks, and eluded that skyscrapers were the next step. If you follow this analogy through, you can see how rediculous this argument is. Skyscrapers are infinately more complex than bricks. So it is with a "simple" cell.

Third, Miller's experiment did not create the exact proteins found in nature. Miller's experiment produced equal parts of both left and right handed proteins. Only one type occurs in nature.

Fourth, in addition to creating a few simple proteins, it also created huge amounts of extremely toxic chemicals such as cyanide and formaldahyde... which would have instantly killed any newly forming life.

So lets summarize how Miller's experiment relates...

1) The early earth atmosphere as theorized by the research paper STILL doesn't come anywhere near the concentrations required for Miller's experiment to function.

2) Miller's experiment still only creates simple proteins, and doesn't explain how complex cells with the ability to reproduce, formed spontaneously out of these proteins. (Keep in mind the simplest cell requires more than 15 different types of proteins to function).

3) Miller's experiment doesn't reproduce what is found in nature.

4) Miller's experiment creates toxic compounds as by-products that would instantly kill any newly formed cells.

So explain to me... exactly how DOES Miller's experiment apply?

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[Pooua]

First, it requires a hydrogen concentration greater than 90% for it to work. The (up to) 40% mentioned in the article is STILL not anywhere near the 90% required for Miller's experiment to be relevent.

I am not able to comment on that, as I have no information on that aspect.

Second, Miller's experiment only creates a few simple proteins.

That is my understanding. What is more, there must exist some sort of trap that isolates the products from the production environment, or the products will break down to their elemental state. Kind of difficult to build up more complex chemicals when the simple compounds keep breaking down!

It does not create life and it never has.

But, a good evolutionist will be able to imagine that it almost does!

There is STILL no answer for how these proteins formed to become a living organism with all the necessary functionality to burn energy and reproduce.

That is a key point that I have often made. Evolutionists simply avoid specifically addressing that issue.

Miller celebrated the formation of simple bricks, and eluded that skyscrapers were the next step. If you follow this analogy through, you can see how rediculous this argument is. Skyscrapers are infinately more complex than bricks. So it is with a "simple" cell.

People believe that evolution works because they greatly oversimply the nature of living cells.

Third, Miller's experiment did not create the exact proteins found in nature. Miller's experiment produced equal parts of both left and right handed proteins. Only one type occurs in nature.

This is one of the mysteries in abiogenesis that I have seen some advocates attempt to solve. I recall that polarized light was one suggested solution (though that doesn't really pan out). So explain to me... exactly how DOES Miller's experiment apply?

This is a great question!

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[mikelieman]

"Which leads back to my original question, when was the Urey-Miller experiment not relevant?"

Aren't you basing your assumption that is was called "not relevent" on a press release, rather than the study itself?

Do you have a citation from the study which indicated the relative interest in the hypothesis?

"All the direct evidence we have of the early Earth's atmosphere is that it has always been oxygenating, not reducing."

I call 'Bullshit'.

Citation's Please.

Thanks.

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

The new "relevance" of the Miller experiment gets to the concentration problem. In short, all of the carbon on earth dissolved in the ocean would still make a weak solution. And of course, the rate at which Miller products would accumulate is certainly a factor. This paper suggests it may have been a higher rate than we had expected.

As for the concentration problem in general, there are many approaches. One of the current lines of thinking is that much of the early pre-biotic chemistry happened on mineral surfaces and clays. It's likely that ionic attraction was an important part of this accumulation. Phosphates appear to be a part of pre-biotic chemistry from the very beginning. It's not uncommon to find carbon-phosphate deposits in very old rocks -- possibly fossilized remains of the earliest metabolic infrastructure for life.

I should also note that some particular types of clay have been found to not only highly catalyze the formation of RNA polymers, but also catalyze the formation of micelles and bilayer membranes. There have been experimental observations showing vesicle formation, which contain RNA and the catalyzing clay. With a sufficiently complex metabolic infrastructure built from simple peptides and other organic and inorganic catalysts, that little vesicle could easily be our great, great, great, great (and so on for quite some time) grand mother.

Anyway, no one is ignoring the question of pre-biotic chemical organization. It is clearly a field with many unanswered questions, but we are working on it. Also, we are certainly not oversimplifying the nature of living cells. In fact, it's probably safe to assume that I am vastly more familiar with the immense complexity of cells than you are.

The point is that there is no significant theoretical obstacle to explaining this. Not yet knowing all of the details is in no way a failure.

The nature of catalysts can easily explain the handed-ness bias of molecule use. It's likely to be a fairly simple consequence of the path of pre-biotic chemistry. Also, it's interesting to note that some of the (putatively) most fundamental and primitive molecules actually make use of both amino acids enantiomers.

And just to be clear, there are no major gaps in the theory -- starting from ammonia, water, carbon monoxide, et al we can get all the way to you and me following highly plausible conjectures. Still lots of work to do, but those of us who actually know anything about the field aren't terribly worried.

Re:Question for the Abiogenesis Crowd

[Evil Pete]

I've heard this suggestion before about a small amount of O2 in the atmosphere at the time (around 1-2%). But it never made sense to me. I mean even if it existed there must have been a lot of incoming comets, outgassing etc with H2 and CH4 to soak it up.

I'll bet living in the transitionary period...

[leonbrooks]

...when the atmosphere had lots of both H2 and O2 would have been, well, a blast.

Re:I'll bet living in the transitionary period...

[jd]

If the explosion did not expand uniformly, it could have acted in much the same way as the propellent in a Catherine Wheel firework. Can you imagine what a work-week would have been like beforehand?

The REAL question...

[50m31sl4sh.]

Does Earth run Linux?

Re:The REAL question...

[mepr]

No, Linux runs the earth! ENTER THE MATRIX -- World Domination!

Re:The REAL question...

[50m31sl4sh.]

The above statement applies only to Soviet Matrix

Facts and theories

[j_w_d]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered

Once more we see the "theory not fact" song and dance, and once more there is no indication that the poster even knows enough about what he is repeating to provide a logical argument in it's support. Evolution is indeed a fact. The "theory" is in regards to the consequences of "descent with modification," a phrase actually used by Darwin, unlike "evolution" which is a word that was applied to Darwin's work by Spencer in the later 19th C.

The empirical facts that Darwin argued from are that "descent with modification" is the norm of reproduction (your children are not your clones) and that selection can effectively create a specialized subset of your descendants whose genetics differs from yours profoundly:

The Great Dane and the Dachshund, the miniature horse and the Percheron are no longer physically capable of cross breeding without human intervention; domesticated potatoes and tomatoes are edible while their wild relatives can be deadly; only with the development of DNA analysis were we able to be confident about the wild parental stock that maize is descended from).

The theory is that these two empirical facts of nature can produce a new species. Since descent takes place with modification as a norm, it is pretty much a mathematical certainty over time, even without the action of selection to consider, that drift alone will cause the extinction or gradual alteration of a parent species into a new one. When selection acts, whether it is a farmer breeding or climatic changes, the selection filters the descendants, Again, this is a fact that cannot be avoided. When a species takes up a great enough geographic range then local or regional conditions can (must actually - but you can think that through on your own) effect reproductive success selectively.

Now, just for clarification, just which aspect of the "theory" do you regard as theoretical: The two empirical facts, or is it the self-evident outcome?

OK

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I will take your word that it's worthy of looking into. And, I'll base everything else I do on strictly faith, like the Writings.

Are people so arrogant they refuse to see that their thoughts and personhood have extremely little or no value to the Universe, except maybe to themselves? That they somehow have minimized, for a short while, the universal entropy even a rock experiences, which in itself is a grand thing to accomplish?

I would like to be under the nurturing hand of a Creator, as my personal life, like many others, could often use a strong hand. But I don't ever see it because all I ever meet and see at church are deviants; well dressed and smiling, but deviants all the same with something to atone for.
The debt they're in, the kids they didn't raise or abandoned, the gossip, the backstabbing, the judgements, the adultery, the networking, the dishonest business deal, because their wife or husband is uptight, racist, a prude, or a slut?

Empty philosophy, agreed, but realistic.

Gutless wonder posts drivel, film at eleven?

[leonbrooks]

I'm guessing that this particular AC became tired of being laughed to scorn.

here's a good reason why from the Creationist point of view things must be "static"

Go visit any of the many creationist websites, they're all about catastrophism, pretty much the opposite of static. <<thwack!>>

the bible says NOTHING that a wiseman goat-herder would/could have known 2,000 years ago

Iff you allow that the said goatherds knew stuff about astronomy that you can't detect with the naked eye, then sure. <<thwack!>>

nothing about biology, germs

Re-read Leviticus. Why do you think so many Jews survived the Black Plague? (Only to be executed by their Catholic brothers for being in league with the Devil, 'coz that's the only way they could possibly have survived, or similar weighs-the-same-as-a-duck logic) <<thwack!>>

maybe you haven't noticed, but the account of creation in the bible LITERALLY/UNEQUIVOCALLY does NOT expound on any long time-scale,

I noticed. When you can reconcile the fresh, flexible organic structures in Mary Scheitzer's fossilised T Rex leg-bone with the 68 million year age assigned to it, maybe we can begin to rationally talk about timescales. Or perhaps getting sensible dates out of ice cores once you eliminate the diffusion varves and such-like, or demonstrating that there's a way to reliably differentiate the whacky dates so easily obtained with every known kind of radioisotope dating from "real" dates would be enough of a start. Meanwhile, <<thwack!>>

Your one good point is that a timescale of some random number of gigayears between about 10 and about 30 is kind of difficult to reconcile with 6 days. It's not just the gigayears, it's that the phraseology in question (along with the entire literary context) leaves absolutely no room for anything other than literal days. They are indeed irreconcilable.

Re:Gutless wonder posts drivel, film at eleven?

[jaoswald]

reconcile the fresh, flexible organic structures in Mary Scheitzer's fossilised T Rex leg-bone with the 68 million year age assigned to it

No one except a creationist calls that tissue "fresh." There is no indication it is fresh. The scientists suspect that the material may have been altered in many ways over time, including a change in chemical composition, similar to processes that replace organic material in other fossils with minerals. Hell, chinese "thousand year eggs" stay flexible, but they are hardly unchanged. What the study reveals is the fact that fossil formation can "seal things in" much better than had previously been thought possible.

Unless you believe that yesterday's groceries can get trapped in 68 million year-old rock, in which case, you'll believe anything.

Anyway, if that tissue is fresh, you must believe that dinosaurs, etc., were recent inhabitants of the earth, but that all those honest-to-goodness old-looking fossils that are completely unfresh, distorted by fossilization, and remineralized (think petrified forest), are, despite all appearances and scientifically-supported dating methods, nonetheless young?

Doesn't seem to be much consistency in your "logic", there.

Re:This is going to disturb Lee Strobel

[Anonymous Coward]

Lee Strobel's argument is this: "There is no plausable model that makes Earth early atmosphere one where abiogenesis is possible". This argument can be refuted by just one plausable model for an early Earth atmosphere where abiogenesis is possible. The model doesn't need to be testable. It only needs to be plausable to destroy Lee Strobel's argument.

Now, I'm not saying that I think Earth did have this hydrogen-rich atmosphere. I'm just saying that, since such an atmosphere is reasonable scientific conjecture, Lee Strobel is going to have to bring out some more creationist chestnuts to continue his promotion of fundamentalism and attack mainstream science. Which science will refute in turn.

Re:Disc. Chan's "Dragons" *GEEK ALERT!!!*

[misleb]

*BUT* what I would not understand, is that if the atmosphere then, being 40% hydrogen - the lightest gas we know of - How would beasts that heavy be able to fly through such a thin atmosphere without a massive load of difficulty???

"Thin" refers to the density of the gas, not its molecular weight. Hydrogen is not necessarily any "thinner" than any other gas.

-matthew

Job and Prometheus

[omnirealm]

Wow since you have so much faith in the scientific process, I invite you to answer God's questions in Job 38-40.

Ah, yes. One must wonder just where the book of Job came from. It's about the closest thing we get to Eastern mythology in the Bible. There is no justice in that story. Justice is not an attribute of the universe; it is an entirely man-made construct.

When Job petitioned God for an explanation for what had happened to him, what did God say? ``Gee, I'm really sorry, but you see, there was this bet that I made with the devil, and well, I had to do all this to you in order to win the bet...'' No! God simply said, in a beautifully poetic manner, ``I am great! (Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?)'' There is no apology, no explanation. Simply, the almightly deity smiting his creation, demonstating the fact that He is God.

At that, no Greek would have done what Job did. Just look at Prometheus. Pinned down, in desparate dependence on Zeus's mercy, yet in his predicament, he shakes his fist at the mighty god, ``I care less than nothing for Zeus; let him do what he wants!''

My apologies for the off-topicness here, but I get a kick out of mythology. I think the trouble with most religious types is that they read their scriptures like they read the morning newspaper. You really don't get much out of it by approaching it that way. That's not how the scriptures were written. They are meant to be read like poems, because that's just what they are.

Re:Job and Prometheus

[Anonymous Coward]

You say this like you know for sure that the scriptures are just poems. Gee, I better start following your factual advice then!

That argument is simply moronic

[leonbrooks]

There's no gentler way to put it. It simply will not fly.

Why not?

We have here two basically opposing world-views, one called Materialism and one loosely called Deism. Materialism, most simply put, says that no miracles occur. At all.

If no miracles occur, then we need something like evolution to explain how superheated hydrogen plasma could possibly turn into Kelly Hu or Nicola Tesla. And it must explain all of it, else miracles are required.

Sometimes a distinction is drawn between "chemical evolution", which gets us from H2 to, arguably, cells - and "biological evolution" which gets us from cells (more or less) to astronauts.

The line separating the two concepts must necessarily be vague until everyone agrees on a clear-cut definition of what is alive and what is not, but the whole shebang is "molecules to man evolution" as we know it and any distinction is inherently artificial since essentially identical principles must be in operation for both stages.

Trying to saw off biological evolution and treat it separately is utterly pointless if chemical evolution is insufficient to get us from hydrogen to biology in the first place.

Both processes must be driven by random perturbations of some of the existing materials filtered (selected) by interactions with other existing materials, else we're in miracle territory again.

It turns out that we're in miracle territory anyway, since chemical evolution requires either a miracle of structure, or a miraculously high number of chemical interactions between the roughly 10^81 atoms in our universe during the roughly 10^18 seconds it may have existed in order to form even relatively simple organic molecules, the precursors to proteins.

Afficiondos of the Miller and Urey experiments are referred to any competent history of Miller since then.

The one argument against this dilemma which appears to make any kind of sense is "the anthropic principle", which says, in essence, "we're here because we're here". It postulates a more-or-less infinite number of universes, the vast majority of which are in one way or another off-stage and failed to produce life. The foolishness of this kind of reasoning can be shown by examining the likelihood of an anthropically produced universe being such a well-matched place for life to have developed in.

Our universe is both well-matched to supporting life and extremely unlikely to have developed life. Change any of hundreds of physical parameters very much and life becomes impossible (in most cases, even planets and stars become impossible). If we had arrived at thgis universe by chance, the odds are fairly extreme that the it would be far more hostile to life, that the "tweakable" paramaters would be off by a fair amount rather than being a cosmic bullseye.

If, on the other hand, you allow supernatural intervention, there is no need for any kind of molecules-to-man evolution at all. People will inevitable go on and argue (this is one of Eugenie Scott's favourite hobby-horses) that supernatural intervention renders science impossible, but that's mere rhetorical twaddle. Engineers and statisticians have been dealing with that kind of imponderable quite calmly for centuries now.

Re:That argument is simply moronic

[Anonymous Coward]

Your understanding of what evolution is, and isn't, is incorrect. If you're going to be condescending and arrogant, it would help to be correct.

Re:That argument is simply moronic

[Dimensio]

If no miracles occur, then we need something like evolution to explain how superheated hydrogen plasma could possibly turn into Kelly Hu or Nicola Tesla. And it must explain all of it, else miracles are required.

Wrong. Evolution explains a specific phenomena: the diversity of species on earth. It is not required, despite your ranting arrogance, to explain anything beyond that.

Evolution is not, despite the lies of many creationists, an attempt to displace "God" (to whichever deity you may refer). It is an explanation based upon observation about a specific set of events. As such, there is no requirement that it suddenly be able to explain events far beyond its scope.

Believe it or not, saying "I don't know how the first life forms came to exist" does not, in any way, falsify evolution.

I'll leave your silly statistics games to someone else; my point here is that your claim that evolution must explain the ultimate origin of life is nothing more than patent creationist dishonest. This is why creationists are derided and/or ignored: they are so often shameless liars

Re:That argument is simply moronic

[fluffy666]

We have here two basically opposing world-views, one called Materialism and one loosely called Deism. Materialism, most simply put, says that no miracles occur. At all.

Here is the first error: Pretending that there are two EQUAL world-views. In fact, both have to start with materialism (This defines what is natural), and theists like to think that supernatural things occur on top of this. The fact that no supernatural occurance has ever been observed casts considerable doubt on this.

It turns out that we're in miracle territory anyway, since chemical evolution requires either a miracle of structure, or a miraculously high number of chemical interactions between the roughly 10^81 atoms in our universe during the roughly 10^18 seconds it may have existed in order to form even relatively simple organic molecules, the precursors to proteins.

The thing is, I've personally gone through this and shown you to be wrong on this before. Why then do you keep repeating it?

Just tell me how the wildly oversimplified calculations preferred by creationists apply to this.

As far as the anthropic principle goes, you have this wrong as well. The probablility of us observing a universe suited to life is exactly 1 - unless we lived in a 'supernatural' universe, in which case there is no requirement that the rest of the universe has the same rules.

People will inevitable go on and argue that supernatural intervention renders science impossible, but that's mere rhetorical twaddle.

Actually, the presumption of no supernatural intervention is the basis of our entire society, and a significant improvement on the thousands of years of superstition based thinking.

Re:This is going to disturb Lee Strobel

[Pooua]

I'm just saying that, since such an atmosphere is reasonable scientific conjecture...

It is an interesting hypothesis, but it is not worth very much until the experimental evidence substantiates it. I believe that if you are more interested in scientific knowledge than in parsing sentences, you will be more interested in what the reliability of this UW study is. After all, not every University is located on top of Mount Sinai!

So....

[i2hsu]

Now they just have to show how this "early atmosphere" with 40% hydrogen can be used in an experiment similar to the Stanley Miller experiment to produce amino acids.... (the Miller expt didn't have 40% hydrogen). And then you have to show how these amino acids can form proteins... and how DNA can arise. Amino acids have eve been found on meteor rocks... But just because you have the building block for life, it still doesn't explain how life formed in teh first place. Just as having bricks doesn't explain how houses are built.

UW Needs Proofreaders

[Champion3]

A new study by researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU-Bolder) and the University of Waterloo (UW) indicates that Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet.

(Prepared with material from the University of Waterloo and University of Boulder at Colorado.)

Man, UW really needs to proofread their press releases.

/Is a UW student

I should have put the post in tags...

[Tatarize]

Some people can't tell the difference. Sarcasm is not troll.

I know God exists.

[CrazyJim1]

If you haven't read the bible yet, check out what Jesus said and did. After you've studied Jesus, you'll know he was God. Once you know Jesus is Lord, then its easier to accept that God created Earth. People who want to tear apart the faith start with things you need to take on faith, they don't start with the things that are at the core values.

Re:I know God exists.

[SPY_jmr1]

after you read this book i wrote, you'll know that I am the inventor of.. um... aluminum foil.

Parent != logic!

Re:I know God exists.

[moz25]

I have read it and I have unfortunately had to reject it and its claims. The same goes for the Koran. What they describe do not fit with my ideas regarding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, human rights and human dignity. Just see what were to happen if its claims were actually true: a humanitarian catastrophe on an unprecedented scale is a result where - even if all christians go to heaven - 2/3 of the current world's population will suffer a fate far worse than death.

I find the works of philosophers and real thinkers a lot more inspiring than a translation of a translation of what some people allegedly heard a guy with a major ego say and do 2000 years ago. I find it baffling how people can have such high regard for a book that romanticizes human rights violations by an entity that supposedly loves us?

Doesn't it ring a bell when the highest sin in a teaching is to doubt the teaching or criticize or.. move on to another theory? Are humans so modest that they cannot see that human values and everything we appreciate is right there with us and in us?

And in other news...

[fireman sam]

Current Earth atmosphere not favourable to life.

According to Asimov...

[jd]

Crerationism is a result of Aaron and Moses not being able to afford fifteen billion year's woth of papyrus.

how the existence of creationists proves evolution

[circletimessquare]

1. we evolved from monkeys

2. monkeys live in social groups dominated by an alpha male

3. fear and respect of the alpha male became a deeply embedded element of monkey psychology in monkey genes, or else if you went up to the alpha male and stuck your tongue out at him or threw your feces at him you were smacked off the tree by the alpha male and eaten by the stegodonts or trilobytes below and your genes would disappear

4. many years later, we evolved from monkeys but we still had some monkey psychology left in our brains

5. proof of this is that some humans still need to believe in the UAM- the ultimate alpha male, aka god, or yahweh, or allah... that even if no alpha male is around, the deeply embedded fear and respect of the alpha male in their genes forces some people to conjure him out of their imagination to explain their monkey-like urges to tremble before the alpha male

6. to such humans, the idea that life can evolve without the guidance of a UAM is a deeply troubling thought

7. therefore, evolution is proven by the existence of creationists: their deeply monkey psychology need for belief in a UAM is direct evidence that we evolved from monkeys

Dude

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

You are 0w3nd.... at least give in gracefully and accept you are wrong, outclassed, and out-thought...

protect the fragile self-reproducing ARN life !

[free2]

The first life was probably a self-reproducing ARN,
Ribozyme ,
that was made from rather simple molecules like
Pyrimidine

ARN is very fragile, so the evolution toward protecting capsules and ADN (which is still a bit fragile) seems logical.

Re:protect the fragile self-reproducing ARN life !

[jaoswald]

just to clarify, you are using the French acronyms.

ARN == RNA (English)
ADN == DNA (English)

Creationists are sooo funny ...

[Evil Pete]

... the number of logical fallacies per sentence is close to maximum. That takes effort. Well done.

And no I wont answer your question because you really don't want to know the answer do you? But that's ok, if it makes you happy ... just don't expect the rest of us to go along.

Dammit...

[Evil Pete]

Don't you hate it when you think of a smart reply and send it to the wrong person. Sorry sport. Wrong target.

LIFE AND THE GALAXY

[Lubricant]

I belive there is life all over the universe.. We may be the only inteligent life in this area of the universe.. With the universe being so young, we might be too far and too young to recieve radio transmissions from other life.. Radio waves might not be strong enough to make it here for us to detect and listen to... Bummer.

bound hydrogen?

[grikdog]

Was this hydrogen bound to oxygen, by any chance? In a ratio of, say, two to one?

Actually

[Luthair]

That isn't true, evolutionary science can, and has explained how eyes could have evolved.

Here is brief blurb: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0 11_01.html

Re:how the existence of creationists proves evolut

[mhackarbie]

That's brilliant.

No kidding

[superyooser]

"Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life"

It was favorable to life by the third day.

Re:God does exsist [sic]... SO YOUR POINT IS?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Man, did we go offtopic with this discussion.)

Since people are discussing the "objective" analysis of whether God exists, just know that it is of personal preference. As what many in this thread have said, the belief in a deity or deities relies of having faith on the inexplicables of life. Indeed, we've reasoned for many normal processes, occurrences or events. We keep reasoning over the events pertaining to the advent of our universe and our planet. Some of us accept it on deified faith; some of us accept it on comprehension; and some of us fall in between both schools of thought.

Nature and evolution reasons faithful reliances to objective comprehension, but, nonetheless, everyone should be appreciative of the beauty of living and experiencing our surroundings; it's just we measuring these issues to a certain degree. For example, I can have faith over the "five senses of life" while understanding and appreciating the biological processes that go along with those senses (heterotrimeric G protein systems, innervations, et al).

IMHO, relying on either blind faith or blind reasoning is undesirable (both terms should not be used interchangably). Instead, it's important to see all aspects of these topics of discussion and make sense of them in our own mind. In other words, read the fine print and let the words sink-in. /.ers should be educated enough to make sense of all this matter (at least I hope so). We've developed enough neurons to be academic to an extent. The images projected to our eyes through reading, the sound waves of that hit our ears, and the sense of hitting certain keys on the keyboard through the execution of thinking are just some of the signals that bombard our brain and makes us respond. Not long ago (in the glacial sense) did we conceptualize our surroundings in more simplified terms as homonids. Quite some time ago, as single-celled organisms, we could only execute certain signals simply by our surrounding environment and nothing more. Just a smidge beforehand (10^12 y), some simple clusters of atomic and subatomic paritcles managed to form the chain reaction of differentiable matter that formed our universe. In other words, we continue to discover life bit-by-bit, and it's beautiful if we can perceive life both inherently and intelligibly. Education forms knowledge; knowledge fosters power; power leads towards the efficiency of comprehension.

Re:Disc. Chan's "Dragons" *GEEK ALERT!!!*

[Khyber]

If you take the mixture of our current atmosphere, and compare it with what's theorized to be the atmosphere back then, the atmosphere itself was not as dense then as it is now. With such a thinner atmosphere, it'd be quite hard to get enough resistance to lift something so large off the ground and into the air, the amount of work would be so much greater.