Slashdot Mirror
Warm-blooded Fish?
DIY News writes "Scientists now have direct evidence that the north Pacific salmon shark maintains its red muscle at 68-86 degrees Fahrenheit, much warmer than the 47 F water in which it lives. The elevated muscle temperature presumably helps the salmon shark survive the cold waters of the north Pacific and take advantage of the abundant food supply there. The heat also appears to factor into the fish's impressive swimming ability."
The next round of global warming is going to see warm blooded land-dinosaurs roaming the tropical forests of the North American continent. We'll all be sorry then!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
both are theories, both have zealots. Everyone will claim this. No-one will ever know.
ID isn't theory, it's a belief.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
How to convince my mother-in-law to stop swimming. 8-)
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
8-PP
For example. Honeybees generate heat in the winter to keep the hive warm and use heat to kill predatory wasps -- surrounding the wasp, heating up to 45 C (113 F) and killing the attacker.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
ID is not a hypothesis, it's a wish.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
ID is evolution *plus* an "intelligent entity", so it's a worse theory.
There's so much to learn from our oceans and yet they're disappearing fast because of the need for food and for some really stupid/ignorant reasons. It would be great if more folks would see this as more reasons for onservation and the repeal of the "tragedy of the commons"... I know, in my fucking dreams.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
What advantege does it give for lasers?
One that hath name thou can not otter
Didn't you guys JUST HAVE this debate??? Some people aparently don't read weekend articles. :)
aye... now, instead of 'global warming', we have 'shark warming'. God helps us!
Who's going to claim this as evidence first...?
...or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionists?
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"?
[/offtopic]
This sig left blank for page turns.
The distinction is not between "cold-blooded" and "warm-blooded" animals but between poikilotherms, whose body temperature is the same as that of the environment, and homeotherms, whose body temperature is closely regulated and held within a normal range of a couple of degrees or less
On the one hand, practically every poikilotherm that's been studied actually thermoregulates in some ways. Very few of them truly assume the temperature of their environment.
On the other hand, "maintaining" temperature at "68-86 degrees Fahrenheit" -- 77 degrees plus or minus 9--is far from comparable to the degree of thermoregulation shown by mammals. Nine degrees too high or too low is enough to kill you, and most mammals.
It's interesting to learn how another kind of poikilotherm performs a crude kind of thermoregulation, but by no means earthshaking.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
As a long time deep sea fisherman I thought there were a bunch of fish who lived with an elivated core temperature. Many of the red meat fast swimming open ocean fish (such as tuna, dorado, baracuda, swordfish) are decidely warm when you pull them in and have a radicaly different muscle structure than what you see with slow moving cold fish. Also the tend to have many fewer visable internal parasites, which I always associated with having a much different metablism.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Same can be said about Evolution, it depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Zealots on both sides have arguments to discredit each other. A true scientist would explore all theories only only discredit those that can be completley proven wrong. Neither side of intelligent design or evolution can say 100% that the other side can not be proved.
Get a FREE Sony PS3
Do any fish have an insulating layer of fat, like many mammals?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Intelligent Design isn't a theory. Being non-falsifiable, it isn't even a model. Saying that it is "wrong" is being overly generous. Lamarck was wrong. ID doesn't even try to be right. The geocentric model of the solar system is a far more compelling idea, frankly. Perhaps fundamentalists should go back to touting that; after all, at least you can try to fudge things with epicycles and such in astronomy.
English is easier said than done.
Since salmon's propulsion muscles are like heart muscles, they never get tired and are always working, doesn't it stand to reason that a muscle that's always working is always generating heat? Expending calories will always have some excess waste heat unless salmon have figured out how to have 100% efficient muscles. So then why is this a suprise?
Wouldn't this also make it easier for predators to find them? How sensitive are marine predators to heat?
Before I start this, let me state that I am a proponent of Intelligent Design somewhat(read my other posts for more information). With that being said, ID is a belief, and not a theory. Religion lies outside of science. The two do not mix, but also do not contradict each other necessarily. Religion DOES NOT say evolution didn't happen, merely that God must have guided it. So the only issue that should be between ID and evolution, is belief in a higher power. I believe schools should teach evolution, but also teach that it is also a commonly held belief that religion comes into play here with the creation of man. Leave it at that, the kids can ask their parents about their specific religious beliefs. Other than that, teach evolution as it always has been taught. You should not have to teach kids about ID, just let them know it exists and they can explore it on their own. It's much too difficult an issue to leave in the hands of the school system to properly teach. Let school teach science, let the parents teach religion. And no, I do not believe ID is a theory, or a science. As has been stated many times before, theories must be disprovable in some way or another if they are wrong. If ID was actually wrong, it still would never be provable.
It is a cartilagenous fish. Common ancestor somewhere way back, but still different. This is also not localized to this fish. Tuna and other sharks exhibit this. It is called regional endothermy, or also heterothermy. We just learned about it in Vertebrate Zoology. It has been hypothesized it allows them a huge increase in swimming speed for attacking prey.
Call a spade a spade. And he didn't mean evolutionist whackos.
Virtually every organism implements homeostasis to some degree. As evolution chugs along, certain mechanisms come into existance that allow them to alter their temperature and other factors as appropriate. The catch is that these mechanisms tend to be expensive (check your heating bill), so there has to be a significant benefit to the organism.
It's silly to argue that warm-blooded organisms are "more advanced". It simply makes more sense in the context of their habitat, food source, and so on. Staying warm in cold water is a tricky business too, one of the reasons large aquatic mammals have done fairly well in my opinion.
A theory can predict. A theory has rules and models. A theory has mountains of evidence pointing towards its validity.
Evolution fits all these parameters. ID fits none.
Bah, evolution is not 'provable'? It is testable, it has been tested. I am aware that said testing and verification prove no theory 100% (hence the name 'theory') but let's look at the score:
Evolution - theorized, tested. directly observable in organisms with short life spans (bacteria, small insects). indirectly observable with long-lifespan organisms (fossil record)
ID - theorized, untestable. impossible to prove on ANY level.
Based on this score, why does ID get argued as if it's an entirely equal theory to evolution? The media feels the need to cover both sides of the issue, why must both sides be considered equal? As scientific theories go there is no comparing the two. One is a scientific theory. One is not. Why is the nonscientific theory given equal weight?
We call gravity a theory but you don't see people in legislatures trying to get 'both sides of the controvery' tought. I can't say gravity has been proven 100% but I can say there's a damn lot of testable evidence.
I know your point, you are playing the Devil's Advocate. You don't like seeing scientific theory getting called 'fact'. I can accept that. What bothers me is this equal weighting. Evolution has a damn lot of testable evidence on it's side, just like gravity, just like a huge number of scientific 'theories' that are accepted by many people on the basis of that testable evidence.
Fine, don't call it 'fact', but don't act so damn surprised when most of the scientific world looks at you funny for giving equal weight to ID and evolution. Simply claiming that evolution has to be 'believed in' is foolish too, as you can go test the published theories on your own.
You forgot, one of them has withstood scrutiny by the scientific community for over a century, one has not.
I'm just point out one of ways they are different since you were pointing out how they are the same. Fair's fair.
Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
What advantege does it give for lasers?
Use these sharks and they don't have to carry separate frickin power supplies for their frickin lasers. Power straight from the sharks themselves (kinda like geothermal).
I never understood why there's even a debate. Not the 'completely dismissing the possibility of God' sort of not understanding, but more of this: if you absolutely can't stand the idea of God /Nixon/etc, and you want to explain life, you've got evolution. Evolution is good, and really seems to be on track. If you do want to believe in God, and that God made life, that's even equally good. Isn't it obvious then (without inventing more stuff) that evolution is the method (the hand, the tool, the forge) of God?
To me, the way things happen is the way things happen. Evolution is the way things happen. Whether God made it happen or the random belligerent awesomeness of existence made it happen is absolutely irrelevant; it still happened. It still happens.
Anything that happens, happens. (1)
So, if the existence of evolution is independent of the existence of God, why the debate about evolution? Couldn't we all just quietly admit that there is, in fact, evolution, and then get back to the root of the issue, which is attacking each other over the possibility that there is or isn't a God?
(1) Blatantly stolen from Douglas Adams, and so as not to be totally removed from context is to be followed by two additional laws, then a corollary to all 3 (or just 2 and 3?), and then an unlikely 5th book of a trilogy, the latter of which I'll not attempt to recall and type below:
[Law 2] Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen.
[Law 3] Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again.
[Corollary] Although not necessarily in chronological order.
And besides -- how do they taste?
Your point is well taken, but you should know that "evolutionist" is generally used only by creationists and has a pejorative flavor to it. Most supporters of evolution prefer the term "biologist."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is only a theory in the loosest sense of the word.
Perhaps you could explain what there is to scrutinize in ID. It amounts to nothing more than a god-of-the-gaps argument with the premise "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution". Heck, guys like Michael Behe don't even deny that evolution happened, but ID is starving for substance that it can be adopted be Young Earth Creationists just as easily as by a theistic evolutionist. This is because it actually says nothing at all.
Science isn't about truth, but evolution is the best explanation for the data. ID explains nothing, and is specifically designed not to. It's a political ploy to sneak Creationism into the public school science class.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ah but the other has withstood scrutiny by people who believe they will go to hell if they prove it wrong... ah. That may have been your point ;-)
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Interesting...
Which is exactly the problem. Evolution allows people to be atheists. It undermines the power of the religious establishments and they hate that.
Worse yet, AFAIK most Western Christians also believe the theory of evolution is broadly correct - i.e. that anything it has wrong is detail, like having the sequence of ancestry a bit off here or there, or having some missing fossils, but the overall principle being sound. What does that do to 'Made In God's Image'? What becomes of the Fall, and hence of Original Sin, and hence of the need for Christ's salvation?
Certainly it's possible to overcome all these problems and accommodate modern biology and cosmology within a Christian worldview, but it requires a good deal of mental flexibility, a rather different mindset to the absolutist fundamentalist.
It's interesting to notice that the Vatican has already come pretty much to terms with evolution and modern cosmology - indeed, they were said to be quite delighted with the Big Bang model, since the alternative was Steady State and a universe with nothing for a creator to do at all!
Basically what it boils down to is: if evolution is taught, then some of those kids will realise that God is an unnecessary addition to their worldview and will drop him into the same bin where they already put Santa Claus. If it is not taught, then some of them will continue to believe in God. That's enough for the fundamentalist. That's a soul saved from hell. Perhaps introducing intelligent design will save a few kids from this insidious atheist menace. Perhaps then, bit by bit, it might be possible to expand on intelligent design and introduce creationism proper, and from there roll back the whole materialist worldview...
There was a very good investigation into the fundamentalist agenda here in the New Scientist a few weeks ago. It was the 8th October 2005 issue, if you want to track it down at your library. Interesting stuff.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Or at least, can CHOOSE to be. Female rattlers incubating eggs will wrap themselves around the eggs, and 'shiver', to elevate their body temperature to keep the eggs warm.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Here's a start. Tell me what constitutes a *scientific* theory?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nonono, it's 'Intelligent Design moron whackos'.
And there's no such thing as an 'Evolutionist'. The term is a crass attempt by believers of Creationism to put the theory of evolution 'on the same ground' as their silly ideas.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
While I understand your interest in the evolutionary mechanism, I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it. I don't think any creature is ever done. At best, a species achieves a relatively stable period where its configuration--for want of a better word--matches its current environmental conditions.
We like to think of species as something strictly-defined and set in stone, but they aren't, really. Not is the long term. In the long term, they're always somewhere between what they were and what they will become. At best, a species is a way of saying "from this time to that time, this organism had this configuration."
Sorry, I'm a writer. That makes you raw material.
Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to destroy the robots. THe could prove useful against these highly evolved sharks.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
i get so depressed by christians who bring up intelligent design who do you think wrote genesis? MOSES on mt sinai (you know who lived in ancient egypt?) .. they are friggin stories .. what is importrant is the messages and ideas behind them FFS
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"?
How about: religious zealots and scientists. Just calling them as I see them... show me someone who believes "Intelligent Design" should be taught in schools, and I'll show you a religious zealot. Zealots aren't necessarily whackos, but they absoultely DO have an agenda, and that agenda is to get THEIR religion into public schools. Whether they masquerade religious precepts as science or just directly demand the indoctrination of students is largely irrelevant. It's still nothing but religious zealotry.
That's not Ironic. Irony is a use of words to imply other than their literal interpretation.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
With all due respect, no, that's a terrible idea.
The reason these IDiots got their IDiotic IDeas in the school is precisely the so called "courtesy". It's not courtesy to call a ridiculous idea ridiculous, and it's not courtesy to ignore mental illness, just because you think you're being sensitive.
Religion is a psychosis, with the only difference from other psychoses being that we have accepted religion for so long, no one will stand up against it. But that doesn't change what religion is fundamentally.
Not even, it's an appeal to ignorance.
The geocentric model of the solar system is a far more compelling idea, frankly.
I beg to differ. I believe the flat earth theory is much more compelling.
Live forever, or die trying.
Could you not use metric temperatures? Celcius is the norm for science. (Kelvin when it is about physics.)
Mutations and natural selection are in fact parts of evolution. Descent with modification. A change in gene frequency for a population over time.
Also, biologists aren't just making shit up when it comes to new species descending from ancestors. There's plenty of evidence that suggests this is what has happened.
If you know of any specific barrier that prevents new species from descending from existing species, please describe it.
Slate.com has a good writeup to this effect, drawing a parallel between Intelligent Design "Theory" and Monty Python's "Brontosaurus Theory" ("... This theory goes as follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle; and then thin again at the far end.")
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755
It also matters because ID is not science. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. It isn't even a theory save in the most general and non-specific meaning of the word. More importantly however, is that public schools in the US are not supposed to be places of religious indoctrination, and ID is formulated as a legalistic scam to sneak Creationism past the 1st Amendment.
Evolution is not a religion. It is not a bit of wild-ass speculation. Not all ideas are created equal, and in the world of science there is no debate. Any theory that seeks to replace evolution is going to have to explain the evidence, and DesignerDidIt explains nothing whatsoever.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Same can be said about Evolution, it depends on which side of the fence you sit on."
NO, it can't. Evolution has PREDICTIVE ability, and is FALSIFIABLE. If you understand what that means, then you know I'm right, and why evolution is a theory while ID is not.
If you don't know what I mean, look it up, and keep your mouth shut until you bother to learn what makes a theory a theory.
Just because there are people claiming something, that does not make it so. You would claim you're intellignet, but your post is significant evidence to the contrary. In the face of evidence, claims without evidence are known as "zealotry" or, altenatively, nonsense.
"A true scientist would explore all theories only only discredit those that can be completley proven wrong."
Ok, give me an example of an experiment I could use to falsify ID. Waiting.
Right, there is none, which is exactly the reason you should refrain from discussing this subject. You're too ignorant to understand what you don't know, yet are making declarations as though you have some real insight.
Because accepting evolution allows for the possibiltiy that gawd was unnecessary. Hence, the reasons why whackos can't allow evolution any leeway at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuna
Wow, not sure why it is news that some fish are warm-blooded.
The warm-bloodedness of tuna also makes allows them to be very good swimmers even in cold water.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Nothing. These three concepts are absolutely not mutually exclusive with the idea that evolution was the process God used to create Man.
Which is exactly the problem. Evolution allows people to be atheists. It undermines the power of the religious establishments and they hate that.
You're 100% correct about this. However 'religious establishments' oftentimes have little to do with what they supposedly represent. Too often they are only interested in shoring up their numbers instead of practicing what they preach.
Having something in place that 'allows people to be atheists', as you put it, is a good thing. God doesn't want people who want nothing to do with him. Better to have people as being outright atheists than fake Christians. Lord knows there's enough of those running around...
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
They intentionally represent proponents of science, so I think calling them whackos is fully justified.
I am trolling
I'm pro-science as well, and am quite shocked that religion is considered as factual in a Western civilazation...
Just want to point out your argument is flawed as "Christianity has been around for over 2 milleniums" (look at the date, it's a painful reminder.), a creationism is dated even further back.
Also, "cause most scientist say so" sounds like "cause I've been told so" or even "I read that somewhere" or why not "I believe so". With the last you engage in a "my belief is superiour to your belief cause I believe it!"-type argument.
More accuratly would be "Most finding indicate based on data which can be reproduced" and "from that data, those who know quite a bit of their field, most conclude and agree on xyz".
I'm not religious. (even if I were, religion in education should be limited to optional catechise) So I'm not trying to debunk what the message of your post was.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
The complication comes in that scientific laws are almost universally expressable as a simple equation, devoid of units and specifics. F=M*A is a law.
Evolution will *never* be a law, because it cannot be expressed in a one-liner. Biological systems are infinately more complex than anything we have quantified and reduced to a scientific law.
However, as you said in your post, "Scientific Theory" doesn't mean what the Religious ID proponants think it means. A scientific theory has been tested and, to the extent possible, all evidence we have supports its truth. Theory is as far as Evolution will ever get, and it might as well be fact.
When the school board of _________ says that they have to put a sticker in the textbooks claiming that "Evolution is just a theory and that other ideas should be considered", the word they are thinking about is "Hypothesis". Theory in the scientific world, and "I have a theory about where I left my car keys", do not have the same meaning, and therein lies the main distortion between proponants of ID and of creationism vs. evolution - most of the creationists see the word "Theory" and assume they have a foothold because of some longstanding debate in the academic world, where the reality is that no such debate is taking place - all serious scientists without an agenda agree that evolution is a fact.
sig?
"I never understood why there's even a debate."
There is no scientific debate.
There is a philosophical debate by those who can't understand what "God of the gaps" means.
"to tell an evolutionist that they are wrong on this one"
you would need to have evidence. Without evidence, you're just one more loudmouthed blowhard that denies the evidence we DO have, but makes no alternate hypotheses for it.
That's where you're wrong, where you misunderstand science, and why so many people are so stupid about this subject. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU'RE KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THIS SUBJECT.
You just demonstrated that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
"There's a demeaning aurra taken up anytime someone mentioned that ID isn't science. "Go play your little ID game somewhere else... we're doing the REAL stuff here"."
That's because people who are doing science ARE doing the real thing, namely, SCIENCE. I would get snippy too if some psychotic god-worshipper tried to equate their mental illness with science. What the IDiots would have you believe is science is nothing of the sort, and their intellectual dishonesty on the subject is deserving of being demeaned.
People like YOU are the reason ID is even near being considered a science. And by people like you I mean ignorant, uneducated individuals who have no idea what science is.
NOT "!=" IS NOT "="; NOT "!=" IS "==".
It was supposed to be something like !("!=") != "="... Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
D'oh....
Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
I agree with you on almost every point, I only have a problem with this one: "Mathematically, it's possible that all of these traits appeared simultaneously, but it's also an extremely minute chance".
I hear this one a lot, but I don't think it is valid. Since we are talking about a large number of random events that just happen to randomly occur in one organism to produce a useful trait, I compare it to asking somebody to pick a number from one to infinity. The odds of picking the number 1,234,543 are essentially zero, but I picked it anyway. According to the logic of hardcore ID believers, because the odds were so small, it must never have happened.
Finding other idiots on
1) Live birth (not eggs)
2) Fur or Hair (not scales)
3) Warm blooded
I'm sure some vet major can list the rest but lets look at it this way.
If I'm cold blooded and I move my muscles like a mad man (err. fish) I use energy. Energy = Heat no? and friction creates heat.
Does that mean if this fish stops moving he gets cold again because the movement of his body creates the heat? I know when I lay down I stay warm (as long as I'm not laying in the snow).
I think this is just a bunch of fish rubbish. Eat more chicken!
Obama = Socialism.
OK. I'll bite on two items (three if you include a suggestion to RTFA).
... it just isn't so.
...." Which is a really lame argument. I mean, if it's OK to kill a few in the name of science to possibly benefit humanity, then it is equally OK to kill off a few more to certainly benefit feeding humanity, no?
....
1) How does knowledge of shark muscle performance in low temp give us insight into vehicle technology? Sharks = organic. Vehicles != organic. You can even argue that the hydrodynamics of sharks aren't particularly relevant since they are necessarily adapted to: eating, hunting, and swinging a tail back and forth. (But you'd be partially wrong because the streamlining does work to some extent even if you replace the tail with a prop.) It's like saying we can build better aircraft by studying bird muscles
2) At this site, there is a suggestion that the creatures could be facing endangerment. And yet, these researchers happily killed off a few to draw the conclusion that "The elevated muscle temperature presumably helps the salmon shark survive". So some educated guess work but nothing hard and fast. One can conclude with certaintly, that without the researchers and Japanese fishermen hooking them, they would survive to the limit of their natural lives. Or shall we trot out the old saw about "needs of the many
No. This was simply science answering (or attempting to) a question of curiosity. How do these sharks do what they do when other sharks could not? The importance of that to humans has nothing to do with vehicles. But you could speculate that they were hoping to find something useful and profitable like maybe a protein a drug company might be interested in
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
As Don McLean said: "The Farenheit, comes out at night, to freeeeeeeeeeeze you."
Oh well, what the hell...
Parser error - I can't make heads or tails of that. It doesn't make any sense.
> Since it has not been disproven, it's at worst a viable hypothesis.
The "herds of invisible pink unicorns" and "flying spaghetti monster" have not been disproven, nor can be, either. I guess, by your logic, that makes them "viable hypotheses" as well.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
"Why then did you use the term 'mental illness' instead of 'crazy' or 'lunatic' or 'whacko'?"
"Because you are trying to be politically correct"
No, because I consider being mentally ill equivalent with being physically ill. I would not call a paraplegic a "gimp" because there is no need to be unnecessarily perjorative.
Besides which, being mentally ill may not rise to the severity of "crazy" "lunatic" or "whacko". Depression is an example, in which the individual is certainly ill, but not "crazy" "whacko" or "lunatic".
"Another example of leftist hypocrisy."
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA. You haven't read my posting history have you. Leftist, that's awesome.
That humans evolved from lesser creatures is also impossible to *prove* *experimentally*. I could not propose an experiment that would prove that I evolved from apes. I could, however EASILY disprove it. It's called falsifiability. It would be trivial to disprove evolution. Just find a fossil record of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs to church, and you're set.
"Intelligent Design" and other varieties of creationism are unfalsifiable, meaning they can't be proven false. There is no possible test that would prove ID and creationism false.
This is the key feature that makes them NOT scientific theories. Any theory that can't be disproven is not a theory.
F = M * A will only apply in certain cases. Of course, that's why there's einsten's relativity, to explain the other cases when it doesn't apply. And those formulas are tons more complicated, not something I would call "a simple equation".
Biology has similar features. If you look on the grand scale, there is no "Grand Unified Theory" yet (just like physics, if you look far enough, scientists can't explain natural phenomena in its entirety). However, there are genetics equations, Chi square calculations, evolutionary graphs and probability calculations.
Yes, I agree with your points about ID, but I wouldn't say that "scientific laws can be reduced to a set of simple equations."
Same can be said about Evolution, it depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Zealots on both sides have arguments to discredit each other. A true scientist would explore all theories only only discredit those that can be completley proven wrong. Neither side of intelligent design or evolution can say 100% that the other side can not be proved.
All I can say, is that I foe everybody that has "free stuff" in their signatures or their "homepage" here on slashdot, and it really increases the signal to noise ratio.
I'm getting sick of seeing this crap about "Intelligent Design" vs evolution. Also, I have never heard of an evolution zealot until this post.
No, ID nor evolution can be "proved". Proofs are only valid in a self contained system like mathematics, everything else is evidence.
My question to all of the ID zealots, is this. If I were able to prove to you that ID was real, and nobody could discredit it, what the fuck would that get you? What is that knowledge going to benefit your life?
I don't believe in evolution 100%. Seems pretty good, but I would not be upset in the least if a better supported theory came around. I'm sure that everybody looked to the south-west and stomped their feet 5 times when Newton's laws were not found to be laws, because they broke down at the subatomic level and at high speeds.
The theory of evolution gives us things like genetics, selective breeding, and an understanding of why different species exist at a point in time, why they disappear, and rapid changes in species are good indicators that there is something radically different in their environment.
Again, what would 100% proof of ID give anybody?
Dinosaurs disappeared because the Flying Spaghetti Monster stopped anointing them with His Noodly Appendage, thus giving rise to the human race to do His noodling for Him.
That is a great story to tell kids. Its entertaining. But outside of that, its nothing.
A fish has bones but a shark has only cartilege. A shark is a totally different species, a very ancient one.
from dictionary.com:
Irony:
2a Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
b An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.
Strangely enough, the theory of evolution is, according to Catholic dogma, acceptable, and not at odds with the profession of the faith.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
Funny you should mention that. Maybe IF (Intelligent Falling) could be the next alternative we'll see in science education.
Aw hell. My tounge is stuck in my cheek again.
one better than mcleodeight
It IS irony. See point 2 below
irony Audio pronunciation of "irony" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. ironies
1.
1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
2.
1. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
2. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.
I think you confused it with 'sarcasm' :
sarcasm Audio pronunciation of "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
Well, how about more accurately, an ideal scientific law would be simply expressable and universally applicable.
The ones we have are close... F=MA is almost universal, for observable common instances of mass and acceleration. Evolution will never fit into this ideal. "Biological organisms change from generation to generation depending on a mix of random phenomina and environmental pressures" is kind of decidedly more vague than F=MA*
*in almost all cases you're likely to personally encounter
sig?
Darned if I see any validity in the way ID and Evolution got into this discussion, but I must comment: Evolution is two things: a theory, and a principal. Both are scientific terms, and have validity only as long as evidence supports them. They describe things known to be true, because Observations from around the world and under different environments support both. Should new observations conflict with some part of either, then our description of them will be modified to fit the new information. This is how science advances. ID is not a theory, it is an idea based upon a belief. It has no observational support. This does not make it false, simply not verifiable and not science. I am a Christian. Not only Christian, but also Catholic. I am also a Physicist and Mathematician. You should not be required to be any of these to understand the difference between Science and Faith. Now, to dive deep into my own meditations: If you want, you may consider ID an article of faith. If you have faith, Science should not be any challenge. You should also be secure that whatever men decide about God, he (or she) will remain unchanged and immune to our manipulations! If one view: Faith is what you believe God did, Science is our attempt to understand HOW! These do not conflict, and no one need study them together to benefit from either. Those who confuse this issue and generate needless conflict only display their lack of both faith and understanding. Mind you, I welcome anyone who wants to disagree with these thoughts. Those who offer scientific evidence may help me modify my understanding of science. With or without evidence, none will be successful in prompting any change in my faith. My children go to a church school. Anyone who suggests having them taught ID or Creationism in Science would meet with my strongest objections because these are NOT science. I would not react quite so strongly to an attempt to teach them the Theory of Evolution if Theology class, because it just MAY demonstrate a tool of Gods will! Please consider, and be kind to each other.
Light, Love, Happiness,
Don't fall asleep!
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
This is still a bit of a debate, but:
Shark != Bony Fish, Sharks = Cartilaginous fish
The distinction is important, because taxonomy-wise, that makes them as different from 'fish' (bony) as mammals, amphibians, reptiles or avians. It's a split at the class level. A warm blooded shark is not as impressive as a warm blooded bony fish would be.
Of course, since chondrichythes (cartilaginous fish) and osteichythes (bony fish) still contain the word chythes (fish), sharks are still refered to as 'fish' but biologically, they're just as different as the other classes. They just also happen to look kind of the same.
The same mistake is often made between reptile and amphibian, or aracnids and insects, etc.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Sadly platypuses and echydnaes have mammary glands but no tits.
So there.
Don't you mean "Intelligent Design whackos or Evolutionist whackos"? ...or maybe we could (gasp!) be courteous and try "Intelligent Design proponents or Evolutionists"?
No, rather: "Intelligent Design proponents or Scientists".
You can't take the sky from me...
Evolutionary theory does not state that any complex structure arose all at once. No biologist, for instance, believes that the vertebrate eye sprang full-formed. We have enough examples of everything from light-sensitive bacteria through simple patches of light-sensitive skin through eyes without lenses and so on that we can at least formulate a potential pathway. As Richard Dawkins says, half an eye is indeed better than no eye at all.
In some respects biological structures are illusions of time. It is only when you look at two organisms in the same lineage but vastly separated in time that you see how a primitive notochord become a spine, or some small ganglia becoming a brain.
This plays directly into the idea of statistical likelihood. There is no doubt that stating that some primitive organism was born with vertebrate eyes is outrageous and so unlikely as to be impossible. However, all that the evolution of an eye requires is that each generation be slightly variant from the previous and that there be some selective advantage to a light-sensitive patch, or at the very least that such a proto-organ not have any substantial selective disadvantage. Evolution does rely upon a randomness so far as mutations go, but it is not a random process, any more than a hurricane is a random process though individual molecules are always going to behave in an erratic fashion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just a small point -- a theory is something that CAN be tested (it makes testable predictions), but hasn't necessarily BEEN tested. The theory of relativity was untested when it was first published. But it explained pre-existing observations and made predictions that could be tested. Note that there was no way of testing the theory at the time... not until there was a convenient solar eclipse could one of the predictions of relativity be tested properly for the first time. Some predictions of the theory we are only just beginning to be able to test, such as frame dragging and gravity waves. ID proponents are fond of saying that evolution isn't a theory because it doesn't make testable predictions. It does. The drift in traits over generations in response to selective pressure can be observed. Macro-evolution (new species, families, etc.) can't really be observed directly, at the moment. One day maybe we'll develop the ability to do this. But that doesn't mean evolution isn't a theory.
ID isn't a theory because it explains all possible observations. There is no observation possible that is incompatible with ID because EVERYTHING can (and has been) explained by "God did it" and "God works in mysterious ways." In contrast, if you took ten thousand generations of fruit fly or bacteria and saw no drift in there genome that would be a pretty big strike against evolution.
Scientists say that a species is a species if it can reproduce. In the higher animals, this requires a male and a female of a species. How do scientists determine the cutoff point between when the parents are species A and the children are species B? In order for Species B to be a species, there would have to be two of them, at least in higher animals. This would presumably also mean they would have to be siblings, since it is unlikely that the same mutations would occur simultaneously from two different sets of parents, and these two mutates offspring somehow manage to find each other.
Can it be proven that the two animals of Species B can produce an offspring, while yet not being able to produce an offspring with a species A animal that could then reproduce?
How do they figure out where to draw the line? It's not like the child would have any great observable difference from the parent.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You've just got to laugh at "scientific" publications that print their data in Fahrenheit.
How many roods to the hogshead is that anyway?
Da Blog
I think that's the difference exactly. No reasonable scientist (yes, there are lots of unreasonable ones who aren't really all that scientific) would suggest that evolution should be taught in churches, or that it is theology or that people who don't believe it are evil and are going to burn in a black hole for all eternity. However, the christian community IS insisting that ID should be taught in science classes, is a scientific theory and that people who don't believe it are going to burn in hell for all eternity.
Teach theology in church and in religion classes. Teach science in science classes. Don't try to pass of religion as science or science as religion.
Does it run Linux?
Moses and stone tablets are part of the old testament, which is part of the bible, which is the holy book of the christian faith. Christianity was built on top of Judaism.
Technically the bible talks about the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. A trinity. Which is really odd for a supposedly monotheistic religion. Maybe that's why jews and moslems have trouble with it. Both of those religions are strictly monotheistic -- they have one god and prophets who are chosen to represent him. But the statement "Christians worship God and Jesus" isn't really a non-informed opinion. If anything it's incomplete. Christian's worship the holy trinity, consisting of God (the father), Jesus (the son) and the Holy Ghost.
At the moment, evolution cannot falsified either since it has never been observed to ocurr.
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. In order for evolution to remain a contendor, there are other testable things which must hold true. So far, each prediction that has been tested has supported the theory. Evolution is a falsifiable theory that has yet to be falsified.
No need to pick on evolution. Methodological naturalism entire could be used, or more properly, misused. Evolutionary theory itself does not have anything to say on omnipotent beings, any more than quantum mechanichs, hydrology or meteorology have anything to say on such beings. The actions of such beings are entirely outside the sphere of science. Evolution, like the rest of science, rests on the assumption that the universe works in specific predictable ways that can be modeled. In no way does any science preclude the actions of an omnipotent creator deity, though clearly some claims will be rendered moot. For instance, people believed that God caused thunder and lightning, but while a modern understanding of electricity and meteorological forces renders that explanation unnecessary, in no way could it ever falsify any singular lightning event, or even all of them. But proclaiming that "God did it" removes any possibility that there is an explanation that can be tested and falsified, and makes prediction of any future such events impossible.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What's the big deal? Tuna fish are warm-blooded too.
Johnny
Think of populations isolated on two islands.
Evolution takes lots of time and lots of mutations.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
you would need to have evidence
Does science have to provide religious evidence to prove religion wrong?
No, of course not. Because science is right, and therefore the only evidence of any kind that can be used to refute anything, whether science or religion, must be scientific evidence.
Sure, it's a strawman, but that's pretty much the argument in a nutshell every time this comes up.
Frankly, I have no problem with science. I don't think that science will ever prove there is a God, since science has pretty much embraced the naturalism philosophy which requires one to attempt to explain everything as if there was no God. However, studying a creation does lead to an understanding of the creator, so I am all in favor of the advancement of science.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
It is perfectly feasible to "believe" in evolution AND "believe" in -a- God at the same time. Evolution does not rule out the existence of a higher being (who, for example, initiated and steered evolution; think about error-correction and speeding things up against the laws of chaos (entropy)) not do most religious books / phrases rule out evolution.
I really, REALLY think any discussion about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs (biblical) Creationism (the latter two being two distinguishable theories) should be on a pure scientific basis, based on facts. In my personal "believe" I put ID and evolution on the same level, with biblical creationism far below. But I REALLY hate it when the scientific debate turns into a religious flamewar.
What interests me (sociologically) is that in this thread any form of mentioning ID or creationism results in replies which indicate that a LOT of people have an almost religious believe in evolution. Some of them are almost as if the writer is scared for loosing his / her groundpillar for his / her worldview. What bothers me more is the hint of total disrespect towards religious persons who dare to have another worldview.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
gain: both are theories, both are not provable (since we do not know the variables). Both have a different outcome. Period.
just look around in the real world: there is a species of butterfly, which used to have white wings to fool their predators (their living amongst birches). ok, what would the evolution theory predict in case the bark of those birches starts to turn black? yeah, after a time the butterfly's wings also turn black (after some generations). see, this did happen in england as the birches turned black due to pollution (industry revolution).
oh, and what would be your "variables" in the evolution theory? an object, able to reproduce itself, cannot reproduce itself if it is not able to do so. yeah, that's evolution.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
So how much money in scientific research grants is out there working to disprove evolution? I imagine it being a rather small number.
Personally, I think a big part of the problem is that parts of the theory of evolution are obvservably true, such as the theory of natural selection, while other parts make no sense genetically, such as the formation of new features in a species which did not have them before. Instead of putting all of this effort into trying to find the answer to how this could have happened, we should put as much effort into trying to determine if maybe it didn't happen and that there is some other non-supernatural explanation.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If they had called it the theory of 'Intelligent Decline' that would have been a masterpiece.
As it is, it was good fun. Thanks for the link.
it was a press release, and therefore intended for the layman...
"ID is not a hypothesis, it's a wish"
Actually ID is a doubt: "we don't think that evolutions explains...blah blah"
How it got from a doubt to saying: "somebody must have created life forms as they are" it's beyond me.
But anyway, all those discussion about ID vs. evolutionism are ridiculous: what can a professor say in a class for more than 5 minutes about ID?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
this was a press release and therefore intended for the layman...
All one has to do is run X number of lemmings off a cliff and see if they develop wings. If they do, then ID is false, as it did not take intelligence to design the wings.
I wonder if Sharks start to go more and more insane as they age. I mean, they can't stop swimming or they'll die so that means that have to never sleep or rest or anything. Its nothing but swim, swim, swim, eat, swim for them. Their whole life is amounted to swim or die.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
I also believe much the same as you, in that science does not say one thing or another about the existence of God. Sure it says F=MA*, but it does not indicate why. Perhaps God or the Great Spaghetti Monster created the universe and decided that F would equal MA*. Why the physical laws exist is not something that science atempts to explain, nor should they.
Some people, however, are just inexplicably outraged at the idea that the universe could have been created, and try to misuse science to explain Why in addition to the How for which science is designed.
* Except when relativity comes into play**
** Except when special relativity comes into play***
*** Stay tuned
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Wow, people really can't take jokes. Settle down and use your mod points wisely.
Not all christians believe in a trinity, so they consider them seperate entities. Check out other christian religions to have an informed opinion.
ID is not unscientific because it is wrong, but because it is useless. It can explain everything, but does not make useful predictions. In fact, most of the more refined versions are not even theories, because they are not self-consistent. The less refined versions are akin to Last Tuesdayism (Theological addition: The invisible pink unicorn will shortly return and crush all heretical believers in the FSM. Repent now!)
Stephan
So yeah, other sharks and the tuna are being mentioned in posts here for good reason. The news here is that Salmon Sharks hadn't been looked at for this before. We don't know that much about them. (Scientists observing them, for example, had no idea a few years ago whether they'd be safe to swim with; they bear a fair resemblance to white sharks.)
Radiating into a new niche with a new adaptation is hardly new. Bull sharks are easily the most common serious shark attack, because they're able to move into brackish or even fresh water. Adapting to a new niche opens up new opportunities to take advantage of that niche. (It's not all predation, of course. Bull sharks seem to move into the shallows in more numbers during years where they're mating there in numbers, mostly, but then attacks are associated with them there. [The Matewan Creek attacks in New Jersey, which inspired Jaws and that whole great white thang, were most likely made by bull sharks.])
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
68 - 86F = 20.0 - 30.0C
47F = 8.3C
Evolutionary theory makes predictions. In order for evolution to remain a contendor, there are other testable things which must hold true. So far, each prediction that has been tested has supported the theory. Evolution is a falsifiable theory that has yet to be falsified.
Predictions are not evidence. You find me one single study that shows a particular species of life forms mutating into another organism, that is wholly a new species. Guess what, you can't find it.
Evolution is a belief, no different than the belief in Santa Claus. Evolution may be true, but as of yet no one has seen it happen.
There is also the small matter of what causes species mutation. If it was as simple as selective pressure, we could easily replicate the process with small rapidly reproducing bacteria. Because there is a trend of new species appearing over time doesn't mean a thing. There is a trend of new kinds of automobiles and stone tools appearing over time. It doesn't mean one begat the other.
So far, the only predictions of which I am aware deal with this concept, by looking at fossil records over time and predicting a similar species appearing at a given time range. Duhh, that is about as scientific is stock trending.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
And, to make the "Troll" mod more insulting, you were making quite an astute( sp?) observation and comment!
Cheers!
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
Cheers!
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
How do you prove ID false?
Create a lifeform from scratch. What happens then? Creating life is currently beyond our technical abilities. That doesn't mean that it is true for everyone, or more importantly, a higher power.
I think you aren't using enough imagination here.
One could also have argued that perhaps someday it will be possible to prove the existence of some deity.
I think you humanistic tendency to believe that A) humans are the most intelligent life forms and that B) there is no god clouds your judgment. Because you do not see the divine in the universe does not mean others have to close their eyes to the sublime.
But ultimately, the only way to prove that intelligent design is false is to PROVE THAT EVOLUTION OCURRS.
This should not be difficult with the variety of rapidly reproducing life forms that exist. But it hasn't happened, and until it does, this debate will continue.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Intelligent Design is not a model because it does not make any testable predictions. It provides no explanations such as natural selection, nor does it predict any phenomena such as adaptive radiation. While it is true that the present theory of evolution cannot account for all the mechanisms through which macroevolution may occur, all evidence points to it. Unless you are going to argue that the Designer is a Cartesian evil genius who created the world for the express purpose of deceiving us, there is no explanation which even vaguely approaches the plausibility of evolutionary theory to describe not only the fossil record, but present-day biodiversity and the genetic and morphological similarities between different species.
We don't know exactly how it is that the brain gives rise to consciousness and identity. This does not mean that a proposal that the mind resides in the left pinky toe is a "theory" which is just as valid as the brain theory of the mind. But even with such an absurd idea, at least we could test it by seeing if people without a left pinky toe are capable of thinking.
The debate will continue, but it is not a debate of evolution versus Intelligent Design, because there is no debate there and there never has been. The debate is between science and pseudoscience; it is between rational thought, and specious appeals to fallacious reasoning made in the name of "fairness."
Equivocation has always been a fallacy, and always will be.
English is easier said than done.
Actually ID is a doubt: "we don't think that evolutions explains...blah blah"
How it got from a doubt to saying: "somebody must have created life forms as they are" it's beyond me.
Actually, I.D. is obfuscated religious belief. It does not start with a doubt, it creates a doubt in a science that contradicts the belief.
Evolution is a fact: The fossil record and the living record show it.
The theory of evolution explains how this came to be, the religious beliefs about a creator that made it that way on purpose are undermined by the better explanation, so they wage a war on the science, since it undermines their irrational beliefs.
These people putting stickers on textbooks are the same kind of people who wouldn't look into Gallileo's telescope. They don't want to see what the universe is really like, they want to believe that it is as they have been told.
There's also a fair bit of pride : They want to be special, they want to be above all other animals, they want to be godly. They don't want to be nothing more than clever apes.
You can't take the sky from me...
does anyone have any actual temperature data? i didn't see any in the article.
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
Augustine
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's not the generation of heat that's interesting, I gather, but the fact that the fish may go to some effort to hold onto the heat, i.e. the heat is not just allowed to seep into the water as fast as it's generated.
Wait, let's look at the ranges for the muscle temps: 68-86 F. Seems a bit of an odd range, doesn't it? If you don't know the temps any better than +/-9 degrees, why state it as 68-86 instead of, say, 70-90?
But converting to Celsius, we find the temperature range is 20-30 C. Aha! One strongly suspects the PR people converted the Celsius numbers in the original paper for the purposes of publication.
Kind of reminds me of buying a quart of milk and there at the bottom it says:
Contents: 1 qt (946 mL)
Hmm, so they're saying this bottle contains 946 mL of milk, and definitely not 945 mL or 948 mL or even 960 mL? Giving three specific digits conveys the false impression that the amount of milk is known to 1 part in 1000. In their "own" system they understand this, which is why it says "1 qt" and not "1.000 qt." But the "common sense" function of the brain just sort of clicks off when they convert to SI. Or maybe it's some kind of brain-dead legal requirement, I dunno.
I find this humorous, although not as funny as the time I found "low sodium salt" for sale in the supermarket.
I guess I should check myself into some kind of clinic to get help, huh?
There is no flaw, you just don't understand the argument.
ID is not presented as christianty, so consistency with christianty does not add anything to its value.
ID is presented as science, hence, it's perfectly valid to criticize it only on its scientific merit.
Nothing was said about the correctness of either idea. One has been scrutinized by science for over a century, the other has not. One has had thousands if not millions of man hours dedicated to understanding the subleties of its implications with the results scrutinzed and deliberated over in the scientific literature, the other has not. Therefore, regardless of the correctness of either idea, they have a property, namely, their history, that is significantly different. Hence, one of these things, is NOT like the other.
Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
I laugh more at cowardly assholes. If you're going to say something, put a name to your opinion.
Today only the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar have not officially switched to the metric system.
You're in good company there - what is that, like 4% of the world? Well done!
Da Blog
Don't be discouraged by being modded down by the pseudo scientists of slashdot. Few people here will acknowledge there is any merit at all to the ID argument and will accuse you of being a stupid Christian fanatic for noting the simple fact that the theory of evolution is not fact.
In Soviet Russia, fish fish you!
Fahrenheit? *shiver*
arghhh bad things only leave to return on the next best occasion.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
What's a fahrenheit?
I think you're right in so many ways and wrong in so many more...
Scientists don't think that those oppose Evolution are evil (they don't have evil). They just think that they're stupid... and believe it or not there are just as many Science zealots as there are Baptist/Catholic Zealots. And in fact many reasonable scientists insist on forcing their religion onto children who's parents don't want them exposed to that sort of thought.
I think that science IS a religon. It's a core of beliefs that creates an entire body of thought which governs living. These various religions are different from their roots which is what makes this so difficult. Scientists believe through and through that they're right based on a set of rules that they've accepted. Theologens believe that they are right through and through based on a set of rules that they've accepted. Since both religions play by their own set of rules they will never agree on a score.
It's like putting a soccer player in a room with a football player. The football player thinks he scored because he walked over a white line, while the soccer player insists that he missed the tiny net that the football player claims dosen't even exist.
But you fell into the same trap that I mentioned earlier. You tried to pit Science against religion and placed it up as the 'real' one, versus 'religion'. Evolution is a theory that falls within the rules of 'Science' which is a body of thought, or a set of rules, which govern a particular way of life. Science is religion just like any other.
Probably responses: Science can be checked and proven or reproduced! Science can be refuted!
I agree. These are rules that were set up within the scientific community. These are all a part of the Science bible. The 10 commandments if you will. They are how science functions. They aren't laws of reality. They are a system devised by people to attain a certain goal.
Buddhism dosen't mesh with Catholisism, and Science dosen't mesh with Scientology.
The deeper problem here is that schools insist on teaching things to children that their parents don't want them taught. This is a wonderful example where vouchers should be used. If i'm not happy with the curriculum then I should be able to take my child to a school where he/she will be taught the way I'd like. And if I'm taking my child somewhere else, I should be able to get that child's share of the taxes being used to educate him or her and apply it toward what I think is the better education.
Everyone wants to claim that church-goers are the wakko zealots forcing ideas on other people... but let's look at this... in extremely religious areas people are having an extremely hard time getting local schools to teach the curriculum that THEY are paying for instead of teaching something that they don't want taught, that goes against their way of life, and is a slap in the face.
Scientists need to understand that by refusing to accept that this group of people does not want their theory, they are quite literally spitting on their way of life, their traditions, and their history. It's not a simple matter of saying 'Whoops! Guess I'll just turn over and let the school teach my son that my entire family tree is a moron for believing in God.'
Progress is great, but let's not lose sight of what we're asking others to give up in exchange for it.
And for the average person who works in a minimum wage job... or even a very well paying job... evolution doesn't mean diddly shit. It's like forcing me to give up my entire system of beliefs in order to admit to myself that pluto is really made of cheese... Who gives a shit?
You should add:
Fish != Shark
FalconShould there be a Law?
We still get along right?
People like YOU are the reason ID is even near being considered a science. And by people like you I mean ignorant, uneducated individuals who have no idea what science is.
Didn't I just say that it isn't a science? lol
So if I understand what you're saying... you're saying that "science is real and theology isn't" which is funny because it's exactly what I just got done complaining about.
If I intend to prove evolution wrong, you're claiming that I need to do it using YOUR rules. The rules of science and the scientific method.
Yet if you intend to prove creationism wrong, you get to use YOUR rules still? And that's where we go in two different directions.
I'm not saying that ID is science. In fact what I'm saying is that Evolution isn't baptist/catholic/buddist/wtfe. All I'm saying is that Science is a religion just as much as Catholisim. It's a set of rules (scientific meathod) governing a belief structure. Whatever religion you might be (baptist, catholic, or scientist) is fine as far as I'm concerned as it has no effect what-so-ever on my life.
So stop imposing your religion on others zealot.
They are vertabrates with a full skeleton. That skeleton just happens to be a softer relative of bone called cartilage. That's why all fish are vertebrates and there's a class of vertebrates called cartilagenous fish.
I feel like such a fool. I made a reply to a post above stating that a shark isn't a fish. When I took a class in Marine Biology about 25 years ago that's what we were taught, that fish were vertabrates whereas sharks had cartilage not bones and therefore weren't fish. After reading your post I quickly googled and found this, FISH- class Chondrichthyes that states "members of the class Chondrichthyes ("cartilage-fish") include the sharks, skates, rays, and ratfish."
FaclonShould there be a Law?
In my personal "believe" I put ID and evolution on the same level, with biblical creationism far below.
In my personal belief, I don't consider ID and evolution to be in conflict at all. I don't, and never have had, any problem with the notion of a creator who works via natural processes. A logical implication of that is that one can usefuly study said natural processes without believing in a creator, and one can believe in a creator without any negative effect on one's ability to study natural processes with rigor and honesty.
Personally, I consider the beauty of the deep structure of the universe as we understand it to be the best "impersonal" evidence for God's existence. In particular, the elegance of the mathematical models we've discovered and the precision with which they map to the observable universe point, to me, to a creator who joys in order and beauty.
In fact, the real genesis of my belief in God came while I was immersed in the study of the pure mathematics of fractals... it amazed me that such elegantly simple rules could generate such awesome complexity, full of apparent randomness filled with richly detailed structure. It astounded me how much of the universe is exactly like those fractals. In many cases, the fractals even have deep similarities to physical structures, which is surprising because unlike much mathematics which can be argued to have been created specifically to model our observations, fractals were not. Later I found lots of other pieces of mathematics that were created as pure math and only later discovered to provide an apparently-perfect model of physical phenomena. Non-euclidian geometries, group theory, and the humble i are just a few examples.
Perhaps the central question in the philosophy of mathematics is: "Do mathematical objects have an objective reality, or are they mere inventions of man?". IMHO, mathematics does have an objective reality, and mathematical objects are discovered, not invented. That reality is in the mind of God, and its elegant beauty is mirrored in the physical structure of the universe because He created it that way.
Of course, none of this is proof of God's existence. That must come in other ways. I suppose I see it as a powerful hint, though, and I challenge those who study the universe but don't believe in God to explain why its structure is so richly varied and at the same time so elegantly simple. If you don't believe in a Creator, you simply have to say "because it is". That's not an unreasonable answer, but it's sufficiently unsatisfying to suggest that perhaps it's worth looking for another.
Anyway, enough rambling :-)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I appreciate your logical skepticism, but in this case... it's more like "all scientific understanding of the way our world has worked, our comprehension of paleontological history, and all the facts we've found point to this being right. It's possible that it's completely wrong, but some fundamentally basic things about our understanding of the natural world would have to be wrong."
sig?
You're absolute right, and that's what I first thought. Imagine my surprise when I picked up the container and it said, nope, I'm made of 100% pure salt in the Pure Food and Drug Act sense of the word (i.e. nuthin' but NaCl). I contain no KCl, no sugar, no secret spice, no nothing. And yet, the box insisted the stuff contained "30% less sodium per serving*" than regular salt.
Yes, I figured out the secret by following the asterisk. In fine print at the bottom it said: "* When servings are measured by volume, not weight."
Ah. What those clever buggers had done was repackage sea-salt, which is naturally made up of larger and more jagged crystals than salt from mines, and therefore packs down less efficiently. So when you measure out a teaspoon of their salt, it contains less salt by mass than a teaspoon of normal salt. Voila! Less sodium.
Incidentally, the standard-sized salt container it came in sold for $3.50 (versus 65 cents for the "high-sodium" regular version).
Best marketing trick I have ever seen. Re-package identical stuff in a slightly different shape, give slightly different instructions for use, and clean up 200% profit. Beats the heck out of "You May Already Have Won!"
Years ago, Ron and Valerie Taylor measured the inside temperature of a shark and found it to be a few degrees warmer than the water it was in.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
And shark fin soup.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Exactly. Scientists don't think creationists are evil. Creationists think scientists are doing the work of the devil. Yes, there are science zealots and they're misinformed. Many of them are atheists, but atheism is just as much a religion as Christianity, a very different thing than science. Don't mistake a rabid atheist for a scientist.
Calling science a religion is wrong. It is not. Religion is about Truth. You believe a particular religion is the Truth, or it is not. Science makes no statements about Truth (or even truth), and does not attempt to prove anything, contrary to some of the more rabid factions on both sides. Maybe that's the source of this argument... science is a very different thing than religion. It says here are our observations, here are some possible explanations (theories) and here are some rules for choosing the best one and developing it. Nothing says that theory is "right" or "the truth" or that you can prove it. The best that can be said about it is that it's useful.
Religion is very different. It's not meant to be useful in a material world kind of way, and it does claim "the truth" and to be "right." Science has nothing to say about this. Any given religion may indeed be right. In general science has no means to make any statements about them. That's why ID isn't a scientific theory. It does not have the characteristics that make a theory scientific - ie that make it workable in the framework of science. No judgement about truth. Science doesn't do that.
So religion has no business being in a science class. Now, should everyone be forced to learn science? I'm tempted to say no (especially being from Canada where we don't really have this debate as much), take your kids out of their science classes. Less competition for mine. Because religion really is quite useless when it comes time to build a bridge, launch a space shuttle or engineer pest resistant wheat. Science is an excellent tool for doing those things. That's why it should be taught in public school and not religion -- because science is a morality-neutral thing. It does not make any right-wrong judgements. Just works-doesn't work. Religion is all about right-wrong and doesn't really care if you can build a bridge with it. Different things. School is about giving kids tools to be useful to society (science). Religion is about giving them mental stability and a moral code. But moral codes are slippery things, especially in the context of religion, so there shouldn't be a single one taught in school. Science is judged objectively (how well does it work in the real world). It's different.
Evolution doesn't make you give up your beliefs. You can believe that God made it all up, that God uses evolution as a tool, or that there is no God. Whatever. Science has nothing to say about that. All it says is that evolution is the best explanation for our observations we have. No judgements on the existence or role of God. Science and religion are different. So totally different there's no need for them ever to overlap.
By the way, here in Canada you CAN choose to have your school tax go to the catholic school system, or the public system. They're the same except the catholic schools add religion classes, prayer, etc. But they still teach science, as science, because God helps those who help themselves... build bridges.
Shark fin soup anyone?
FalconShould there be a Law?
When I was a kid reading up on sharks 15 years ago, I remember reading this as fact. Nice of slashdot to finally catch up.
Someone at ufl really blew that conversion. You don't at 32 when converting differential temperatures from C to F, only absolute.
I wonder if that shark can really keep 60F differential when immersed in water (a very good conductor of heat). Maybe it can only keep 27F (the proper conversion of 15C differential)?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The first time I saw a tuna next to a human being, I thought the photo was fake. Apparently, the giant tuna of yesteryear are long gone. Fisherman have depleted the gene pool of the record sized tuna of 40 years ago, and we're left with what would've been the runts back then.
There's so much to learn from our oceans and yet they're disappearing fast
Son, I think you're confusing oceans with rain forests.
While the oceans themselves aren't disappearing the marine life in them are. Many fishing grounds are being overfished and be cause of this the fish that survive are getting smaller. Crustaceans like crabs, lobsters, and shrimp which many other marine species depend on are also being over harvested. And aquaculture, fish farms, are only making it worse.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I recall when that movie came out, scuba diving was seriously damaged by the movie, with many dive shops having to close. Others were able to hang on in part by giving away free scuba lessons. It helped some but not much really, too many were simply afraid to get in the water. Where friends and I like to dive, the Florida Keys, it wasn't some much sharks you had to beware of, instead it was barracudas. If you wanted to keep your arms you'd better not wear that shiney watch, cudas are fast and love shiney objects.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's rather glib... That might be true if natural selection was disproven, but evolution spans far more than just that one theory. The entire process of speciation could certainly be disproven and replaced with something else without throwing all of biological science on it's head.
To date there's little evidence as to how, precisely, speciation happens. Since DNA sequencing became common, we've also discovered that two creatures that look similar could have completely unrelated parentage, and vise versa. My point being: the evidence of speciation being presented from the fossil record, based only on similar physical traits, is very unreliable science.
In the past century, not only have we not found any evidence of the "missing link", we have lost one link evolutionary scientists thought was squarely in the chain... the neanderthal. The theory de jour being that perhaps humans sprang-up independently of them, and they died-out from the competition.
I've gone off on a tagent here, but it's entirely possible that scientists are largely mistaken on mainstream theories. Go back to things like spontaneous generation, miasma theory of disease, or any other obsolete scientific theories science had built-upon. The rug CAN be pulled out from under science. Scientists agreed on THOSE theories at the time as well...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
acutally, the "strangely enough" was aimed as a bit of sarcasm toward the parent without trying to be trollish - the idea that religious belief requires scientific ignorance is b.s. Frankly, I find that science enhances that belief.
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
I'm sick of arguing this one with people who don't understand the difference between a theory and a belief.
A theory is simply a model for explaining the behaviour of a natural process which fits the available observed data. Nobody is saying that it is irrefutable fact (cf belief).
I don't believe that a big bang started the universe. I don't believe in subatomic particles. I don't believe that white light is made up of all other colours of light in something called the visible spectrum. However, I find that all of the examples above seem to model the natural world to the extent that these theories can be usefully used as models. That's it.
Anybody who tries to pass off scientific theories as fact doesn't understand what a scientific theory is for, or is trying to sell you something.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
to a simple stone.
Remember that natural selection and theories on speciation are simply hypotheses trying to explain the observable fact that organisms mutate and evolve all the time.
Darwin's original hypothesis (survival of the fittest) was shown to be incomplete but it didn't detract from his fundamental observation that evolution was taking place.
As the grandparent said, almost everybody does agree that evolution is an observable fact. Opinions vary on the mechanism for getting from single-celled organisms to the wide variety of species we have now.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
to a simple stone.
Based on this score, why does ID get argued as if it's an entirely equal theory to evolution?
;-)
It doesn't, really. ID is often asserted, but that's different from an argument. What passes for argument in ID circles is talking about all the loose ends in evolutionary theory. That's pretty easy, because biologists do the same, and anyone can listen in to pick up the discussion points. But you never hear a scientific defense of ID, because you really can't express it in scientific language.
(You can talk about ID in engineering terms. I've gotten involved in a few such discussions. Engineer types can have a lot of fun with it. Consider what you can conclude about the Cosmic Designer by examining His handiwork. That Designer was one weird dude. Eventually the ID guys realize they're not being taken seriously, get very annoyed with what those geeks call "humor", and leave.
But there really isn't anything resembling an argument (in the scientific sense) for/against ID. There's really nothing to be said about it except "I believe" or "It's not testable", and that's not an argument.
Myself, I like to ask ID supporters if they've read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Usually they haven't, so I tell them with a straight face they it gives strong support to their theory, and they really should read it.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
To date there's little evidence as to how, precisely, speciation happens.
... we have lost one link evolutionary scientists thought was squarely in the chain... the neanderthal.
If you change the wording slightly, you can get something that is generally understood among biologists: There's much evidence that speciation doesn't happen precisely at some instance in time; rather it's a gradual process with a messy transition. A speciation event can be long by human standards, though fast by geological standards ("punctuated equilibrium").
We have lots of examples. Thus, cattle breeders recently produced a fertile cross between domestic cattle and the American bison ("beefalo"). Previous crosses had been sterile, and they were considered separate species. Now they're considered a speciation event that's nearly but not quite complete.
The familiar "mule", i.e. a horse x donkey cross, sometimes produces fertile mules. They're very rare, and their offspring are usually sterile. So this is another speciation event that's almost complete.
The domestic dog can interbreed with grey wolves and jackals, but those wolves and jackals can't interbreed. Well, they can, of course, but the offspring aren't fertile ("mules"). This is considered a 3-way species split happening right now, but not complete. 3-way splits are probably rare, but we seem to have one living in our homes.
And on and on. There are many cases where what were thought to be two species turn out to be somewhat interfertile. They almost always turn out to be very differently adapted, and the hybrids are usually not very successful in either of the parents' habitats. The conclusion is obvious: We're seeing a speciation event.
Actually, that's still deserving of a great deal of skepticism. The evidence one way or the other just isn't very convincing. Proving or disproving actual descent is very difficult, and there's a good chance that the fossil record doesn't contain the needed information to disprove Neanderthal ancestry in modern Europeans. It might contain evidence supporting such ancestry, but that hasn't been found either. The fossils of apparent hybrids aren't convincing; they could have been "mules", they could be our ancestors, or their descendents could have died out. Our only DNA evidence is fragmentary mtDNA, and all we can conclude from that is that there's probably no purely maternal line leading from Neanderthals to modern humans. After 30,000 years, that's not too convincing.
All this should be called "conjecture", not "theory".
Something that keeps getting missed in the ID discussion is that scientists generally have no qualms about saying "We don't know." That's a very respectable scientific position (usually expressed as "Further research is needed"), and is one of the best counterpoints to the ID proposal.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
As Richard Dawkins says, half an eye is indeed better than no eye at all.
There's some interesting recent news on this front. Google for "brittle-star eye" and read a few of the articles. Anyone interested in evolutionary puzzles should know about this research.
It seems that we've found a new eye that's in the early stages of evolution. It's a compound eye in a class of critters (starfish) that otherwise don't have eyes, though many do have patches of light-sensitive cells that can't form an image.
But a small group of brittle stars have recently (past million years or so) modified their silica-based armor so that it includes tiny compound lenses that focus light on a cluster of light-sensitive cells. The brittle stars have patches of these lenses, and they have been shown to form images. The resolution isn't great. They probably can't even resolve things 1 degree apart. So the sun and moon are each less than one pixel. But it's a good start, and in a few million more years, their descendents will probably have much better eyes, several per arm.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
So how much money in scientific research grants is out there working to disprove evolution?
;-). Just when did the theropods split off from the other dinosaurs? We don't really know, and some recent theropod fossils in South America have pushed the split back by several million years. Maybe the theropods are really a separate order, more closely related to mammals or reptiles than to the other dinosauria. Maybe Deinonychus was a closer relative to us than to Stegosaurus. That's a wild surmise, but it hasn't been disproved, so some biologists push it as a "devil's advocate" argument.
Two answers:
1. Lots
2. Not enough.
In a sense, most of the digging at paleontological sites, plus the laborious extraction and study of fossils, is done with the goal of finding evidence for or against various hypotheses. Granted, these are mostly about details. But this is because the general evolutionary history of the Earth has been quite well filled out. There's no longer any room for doubt about the general outline, so you have to concentrate on the finer aspects of it all.
Thus, one of Darwin's conjectures was that birds had a lot of similarities to dinosaurs, and there was a good chance that birds are modern dinosaurs. But birds are fragile and don't fossilize well. When he was alive, only a few Archaeopteryx fossils had been found, and scientists just said "That's interesting, but you need better evidence than that." And so things stood for a century.
Then, back in the 70's, a gang led by John Ostrom decided to attack the puzzle again. By some luck, China had stopped sending their intellectuals to re-education camps, and field research was again permitted. In the rocks of Liaoning, some very fine siltstones and limestones were found that contained fossils of several more primitive birds and some of their non-flying relatives. Some of those birdlike non-flying dinosaurs had feather-like coverings, as Ostrom predicted. The evidence built up, and now birds are officially classified as a suborder of the dinosaurs.
The evidence could just as well have shown that birds weren't dinosaurs at all. They could have been crocodilians, as some biologists argued. They could have been a completely separate order. The details still aren't complete, but it is clear now that birds are theropod dinosaurs. This idea was falsifiable, as were the other classifications. The others were debunked, and the theropod hypothesis was supported by the evidence.
But there's still a lot of work being done (and funded
Anyway, there is funding for this research, though few paleontologists get rich from their life work. If we really want to know about such things, we should find ways of sending more money their way. That's more likely to answer the questions than any debate with religious folks.
And really, how credible are they? They claim to have this private communication channel to the Intelligent Designer who set it all up. But they can't even tell us where to find the relevant fossils. Why don't they just ask the Designer? He must know, and He talks to them, but they aren't telling where the bodies are buried. Doesn't this failure sorta discredit them?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I've read an insightful comment on Slashdot a while back about the distinction between fact and theory. Using gravity as an example. I don't believe I'll be very succesful in looking it up for a link, so I'll paraphrase from memory.
Gravity is a fact. Things fall. There is also a theory on gravity that describes the underlying mechanisms.
On the other hand:
Evolution is a fact. Species change. There is also a theory on evolution that describes the underlying mechanisms.
Maybe
nobody is arguing with you.
Evolution, big bang, subatomic particles... these are all theories and models used to describe what we observe in our universe. Absolutely right.
BUT
These are theories used to describe the universe within the belief structure of Science. You BELIEVE that the scientific method is the best way to deal with and extract information from your surroundings. From this BELIEF you get your theories.
If someone does not subscribe to the belief that the scientific method is correct (And you can deride that all you want, but there is no proof whatsoever that the method is simply FACT. It's an assumption that all of science is built on. A well founded assumption, but an assumption none the less.) then all of the scientific proof in the world is worthless to them. It would be like having a baptist come up to you citing a passage of the bible that says XXXX. To him this is his 'proof' which comes from his belief structure (his chosen religion), which leads to his theory, that the universe was created by an intelligent force. It means nothing to you because it dosen't follow your beliefs... it dosen't mesh with the Scientific method.
Is it a Scientific theory? no. It dosen't follow the rules of science.
Is it a baptist/catholic/whatever theory? Maybe and probably yes. They're all different afterall.
No I don't. These theories are valid models regardless of how you got them. It doesn't matter how the model was made, as long as the parameters and limitations of the model are understood by anyone using it to model anything. Belief has nothing to so with it.
Nope, this is not a belief structure; it's simply a method of modelling and measuring the natural world which has been shown to get results as far as the previously described theories are concerned. If somebody comes up with a better method for determining how the world works, and by better I mean more able to model the world usefully, it won't shake my belief system because I don't have one.
There is no such thing as scientific proof. A theory can never be proven, only disproven when it fails to accurately describe real-world observations. Sure you can validate a theory by using it to accurately predict something, but as soon as the theory doesn't fit the observable facts, it will be replaced by something which does. If the new theory is developed by a team of budhist monks meditating for 10 years on the top of a metal spike, it doesn't matter. As long as I can use it to model the world and make predictions.
Getting back on topic, ID and religious doctrines are not theories in any normal sense of the word; you can't do anything useful with them in the real world. They are just stories to make you feel better in the middle of the night.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
to a simple stone.
That should have read "...that the origional poster referred to in their origional post." I see you two are indeed two different people.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
If the new theory is developed by a team of budhist monks meditating for 10 years on the top of a metal spike, it doesn't matter. As long as I can use it to model the world and make predictions.
I call bullshit on this one. Noone in the scientific community would accept this theory unless it was able to pass certain criteria outlined by the scientific method. Without following this method, it's not science. Period.
The moment you start using other methods (e.g. the method of sitting atop an iron spike, or the method of thinking that a world without a designer is impossible) you're not doing Science anymore.
The fact of the matter is that scientists are attempting to model (theories) our universe (the real facts sought) using a method, or a "rule-set" if you will (scientific method). This is only possible by taking certain things for granted (assumptions) such as the validity of the scientific method (a model which is used to model the universe), or the assumption that the things which are true now, will be true tomorrow (e.g. chemical reactions won't suddenly 'change' for no observable reason, momentum will continue to be conserved into the unforseen future). Assumptions like the reality of causality are what make Science possible.
Baptists, catholics, theologins, buddhists, etc are trying to model (theories/dogma) the creation/universe (the real facts sought) using a method, or 'rule-set' (bible, koran, other set of guidelines). This is only possible by taking certain things for granted (faith) such as (for christians) the belief that the bible is perfect with no errors. This assuption makes christianity possible.
Both sides of this thing, creationists and scientists, are trying to model the same thing using different rules. The rules were both created by fallible men and women who are trying to get as close as possible to the truth as they can. The rules (of both) are far from perfect. Scientists translate the universe, and theologens translate the bible. A catholic man interpreting the bible would be an absolute idiot if he sat back with 100% certainty that he understood the exact meaning of anything in the bible. By the same token, a scientist would be a moron for saying the same thing about the world. When it comes right down to it, we're all wandering in the dark.
Science has an aweful lot resting on the shoulders of the scientific method... likewise christians have everything resting on the foundation of the bible. Both groups are taking these things by faith/assumption/belief. Whatever you choose to call it.
There is no such thing as scientific proof. A theory can never be proven,
Thankyou for pointing out this fact repeated by every moron on this entire discussion. If you'll look back you'll notice that it was uterly non-pivitol to my point and was clearly only a miss-use of the word.
Now you're just not listening. The scientific method is entirely separate from the models it produces. You don't need to believe in "The Scientific Method" in order to make use of a theory to predict something. If the scientific method were proven to be complete nonsense tomorrow, and all the people who had used it to generate theories had apparently just got lucky, the usefulness of those theories would not change at all. The scientific community might baulk at the example of the metal spike which you seem so hung up on, however if the theory was shown to be a valid, useful one then it would be accepted soon enough. Remember that the scientific community, much like the church, is made up of a lot of people who have a vested interest in the status-quo. Einstein was considered crazy by many members of said community before observations started to give credence to his relativity model.
If you're going to argue that the assumption that observable facts are not going to change is an article of faith then I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion.
The point about not being able to prove a theory is an important one tho, however defensive you feel about it. It means that nobody can argue that a scientific theory is absolute truth, there is always some doubt. This is a good thing as it allows new ideas, however it is a point which is frequently exploited by people who are absolutely certain that they know the truth; I'm absolutely certain and you are not therefore I must be correct.
Just to be clear, blind faith in the words of the bible is not the same as reading and understanding the formulae in a chemistry textbook. One requires critical thinking, the other does not.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
to a simple stone.
I could keep hitting you with this over the head for 2 weeks and you're just never going to understand. For the sake of my own peace of mind, I'm going to try one more time...
You are judging another attempt to find the truth behind the universe by your own (in this case Scientific) set of rules. Please understand that these rules simply do not apply to theology. They can't. I can't walk up to a buddhist citing verses from Exodus because to him they're meaningless. The buddhist would have no luck convincing you that you're wrong by citing tennents of his religion, and you'll have no luck judging the merits of any other religion using your interpretations of the universe. Every one of these groups of people are seeking the same thing. The truth. They have all decided on the 'proper way' of doing that, and went from there. You chose science.
Now your entire argument is built upon your assumption that science is right and all other religions are wrong. This is NOT a basis for an argument. It'll only make since for people who have already come to that conclusion themselves.
Contrary to what you seem to think, Science is FOUNDED on the scientific method. Take away that, and there is nothing. None of the theories, or laws, or hypotheses are valid. This isn't to say that they can't be re-validated with some new system... maybe they can. But maybe they can't.
Either way there's no garuntee that the scientific method is an appropriate model for modeling the universe... just like there's no proof that any other major religion is any better of a model.
What I'm getting at here... is that you assume from the start that you're right... You have absolutely NO proof that the system of guess/test/check/recheck/theory/law is correct. Conceptually it makes sense, but it's still a leap of faith. Yes... scientists have to have faith.
The fact that you've argued this so much thus far tells me that you're just as indoctrinated to believe in your 'system' as any baptist is to believe in his.
apparently not.
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
to a simple stone.