Slashdot Mirror
Did Humans Evolve? No, Say Americans
Stern Thinker writes "In a 2005 poll covering 33 countries, Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish respondents) to assert that 'humans developed ... from earlier species of animals.' Iceland, meanwhile, has an 85% acceptance rating for evolution." The blurb on the site for Science magazine is less circumspect about the findings: "The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States."
The current administration has been quite effective in keeping this issue in the public eye and billing it less as an issue of science and more of a threat to society. The issue has taken on the sentiment that if the concept of evolution becomes widely accepted then faith is voided and we enter moral decay (which is obviously wrong, thanks Bush). But it's definitely how a majority of Americans feel. Science threatens their faith.
Jim
http://www.runfatboy.net/ -- Exercise for the rest of us.
...the idea among Americans that humans didn't "evolve" from earlier forms of animals isn't new, and definitely hasn't changed markedly since 2000.
I'd hope that would be obvious to most people. The figures are mostly unchanged for decades, so the assertion that this is because of "widespread fundamentalism" and the "politicization of science" seems to be somewhat of a politically motivated assertion in itself.
Note that about one third of Americans reject the concept of evolution. It's unfortunate that even if people do want to have a religious or spiritual belief, they can't reconcile it with fairly firmly established scientific truth.
Further note that "fundamentalist religions", as the study refers to them as, are also not new in the United States. A lot of people would like to think that these people have sprouted up from nowhere in the last 6 years, but that's simply not the case.
...Americans reported least evolved humans on planet.
Funny how that worked.
I can't believe I'm trying to defend America's honor by pointing out that we may still be better than Burma or Pakistan. :(
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
in this day and age, we're still experiencing the same thing Copernicus faced 500 years ago. Will we EVER learn a thing?
evolution is as much fact as the earth revolving around the sun. it doesn't take a genius to understand that--some basic damn education in school would help!!!
[/outrage]
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
Some claim politization. I say Americans are simply observant. Take a look around in America lately, would you believe evolution?
Given that evolution suggests selective improvement through change over time, I'd says that the grammatical skills of the Slashdot editors are evidence against that theory...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I, for one, consider George W evidence that we some of us have evolved very little from monkeys.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
"Ape evolved from man, not the other way around!"
Where were you when the voynix came?
Yea yea, we suck. Who were the last people to accept Coninental Drift? Americans. We don't believe in global warming, we don't believe in evolution, but 50% still believe we found WMDs in Iraq. If we couldn't brain drain scientists from other countries, we'd probably still be living in caves.
I just don't get it. What is the deal with people never changing their minds, or letting in new information? Most people aren't stupid...I'm sure the average person in Iceland isn't any smarter than the average american (Kansas excluded). It could just be the religious thing; a lot of european social democracies are much less religious than we are. I mean, I understand we're not a pro-intellectual country, but there is a huge difference between not rhapsodising about your elite scientific tradition, and being completely averse to new knowledge.
You can't even blame it on modern schools...We have a tradition of this type of mental blindness going back more than a century.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
But, who knows...I guess I often think of something I heard someone say: "If humans evolved from apes...why are there still apes?"
Simply because evolution doesn't work that way. Just because a mutation occurs and creates a branch in the evolutionary tree, doesn't necessarily mean that the ancestor must die. A balance can be achieved among the mutated branch and the original species.
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
"I guess I often think of something I heard someone say: "If humans evolved from apes...why are there still apes?"
Maybe you should think a little more.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
the answer to your question is simple. natural selection hasn't put apes into eternal sleep (yet). living demands a degree of fitness but with good environment the degree of fitness necessary to allow survival is low.
That's not evolution, it's de-evolution.
They tell us that
We got our tails.
Evolving back
To little snails.
I say it's all
Just wind in sails.
Were we once men?
We were DE-VO!
Yeah, I filked it in another thread, but it's just as appropriate in post-9/11 America. Mothersbaugh spoke the truth: We are DEVO.
That's pretty shocking. That 15% of any country would not believe in evolution I mean.
because you don't know the very first thing about evolution.
humans did not evolve from apes. humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
apes are just as evolved as humans. evolution does not have a goal. apes are not trying to become human. everyone is just trying to survive in their environment as best as they can.
Ahh, but humans didn't evolve from apes; they shared a common ancestor (who no longer exists). Nowhere in evolution does it state we descended directly from apes, current day or otherwise.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I've just read Chomsky's 'Imperial Ambitions', by the way, does it show? :)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Ape? I assume you meant to say "Complex Protein" or "Primordial Soup" or something like that. Of course we didn't evolve from apes, though we probably did have a common ancestor who was neither human nor ape but possessing some qualities of both. It's not like apes aren't evolving as well.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I would like to see a survey that surveys the type of people that answer these surveys.
It's called a fork in development. Consider OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
However, apes are less mobile and are therefore do poorly on savannahs - where humans first appeared. They can't swim, so are less able to spread than the more versatile beings who split from them.
Tortoises exist because fish are really poor at climbing around on land. There are flowering trees because there are plenty of wooded areas where fires are improbable to non-existant.
Evolution is not a replacement scheme, it is a code fork where the fork is optimal for different conditions.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I have a hard time thinking humans came from apes.
Well, if you're uncomfortable with it, don't worry : humans started out of tiny little thingies in water (unicellular stuff, you know).
I guess I often think of something I heard someone say: "If humans evolved from apes...why are there still apes?"
Well, picture it that way : why not only one species for each branch that occurs ? Why not one single kind for cats, dogs, etc. ? The answer is always the same : different kind of evolutions, different abilities to survive, different places where to survive. I guess an ape is much more apt to survive to living in the jungle barehanded than a human being is. And because one species is more adaptive than another doesn't mean the other one can't survive anyway, as long as the ecosystem it lives in still exists.
No one is saying that we evolved from apes that exist right now. The theory is that we shared a common ancestor. "If birds evolved from reptiles, then why are there still reptiles"?
Sounds like one of the grammatical errors I make when I'm editing a sentence -- especially a sentence typed into a tiny edit box in a browser. For example, I might have written "Did Humans Evolve? No, Says America." Then I might decide I don't like anthropomorphizing the country, and change it to say "Americans", but forget to change the verb to agree.
The enemies of Democracy are
Well we didn't evolve from apes. Us and Apes evolved from a very similar ancestor which no longer exists (although there is no reason one species must become extinct for a new one to evolve). The apes comparison is a common misconception, although our ancestors did closely resemble apes, so its easy for most people to relate to. Your quote that you heard is about as intelligent as claiming "If adults grew from children... why are there still children?"
Regards,
Steve
The same reason there are different breeds of cats. Or both cats and cheetahs. It's a big planet, we got room.
The article is about the US, Japan and a whole swack of European countries (presuming that I can include Turkey as European). Okay, but what about the rest of the world?
Where is the "OK, this is lame" selection?
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
What I find surprising is how many people who really SHOULD know better get sucked into this creationism/intelligent design thing. My brother is a Medical Doctor who took biochem as his undergrad and has made serious attempts to debate me on the merits of I.D. Unbelievable.
I quickly devolve to base humour and send him to http://angryflower.com/goinaf.gif and http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=200
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
Americans says that badly grammar is well, say a new survey.
I think it's more like
Best. Propaganda System. Ever.
Question: Do you believe in Evolution?
Answer: YES. How else can you get your pikachu changed into a riachu!
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
And according to this study 64% of respondents believed that aliens have contacted humans.
Many, many people all of the world do not 'get' science. It has nothing to do with religion. This happens all over the world.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
The roughly third percent of the US population who do not believe in the evolution of humans cited themselves as proof...
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
We DIDN'T evolve from apes, at least not modern apes. We and apes have common ancestors from which we both evolved separately. The chimp isn't your grandpa, he's your cousin, in other words. We can trace back several species - even multiple genuses of humans before we get back to where we would have joined up with chimps and gorillas evolutionarily. Gorillas, for instance, did not come from Australopithecus Afarensis, but we did. Our common ancestor is somewhere back before Australopithecus. And notice that, no, there aren't those anymore.
Not that one species can't evolve from another and both still exist. What if a group of, say, tropical mountain goats moves to a different mountain range, one that's not tropical? They'll either die, or adapt to the different climate. A hundred thousand years later, they may no longer be able to mate with the tropical goats, nor survive in the tropics. But the tropical goats are still there in the tropics, doing just fine.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Judging from the list of countries where the poll was taken, they generally focused on "Western" nations and completely avoided many countries that would probably appear more fundamentalist than the U.S. or Turkey. Imagine the results if we tried the survey in Iran, Bangladesh, or most other so-called "Third World" countries.
Oh wait, we're trying to show that we're the most clueless Western nation, not the most clueless nation overall. Sorry. I forgot that for a moment.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
...the numbers in the UK have risen from 12% to 33%, in large part because of American fundamentalism. The numbers do fall, fortunately, as education improves. Nonetheless, the British are deeply concerned that they will simply run out of skilled scientists as a result of a lack of understanding of how data should be collected, analyzed and scrutinized.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Because apes are pretty good at being apes.
A "daughter species" doesn't necessarily kick the parent species out of its niche. That's common when the environment changes but doesn't eliminate the old environment, or when the old environment splits into to different parts. Humans evolved from tree-dwelling apes who ventured out into the encroaching grassland. That selected for apes which walked on their hind legs at the expense of prehensile feet, but the trees were still there and apes live in them to this day.
Go into an ape's niche and you'll find yourself massively out-competed. You'd make a lousy chimpanzee.
Sometimes a daughter species does compete with, and outcompete, the parent species, and drives it into extinction. We appear to be working on that pretty vigorously. In a century or so the answer to the question "Why are there still apes?" may be "There aren't." But it doesn't really change the answer: new species come all the time without destroying the old ones.
Remember that from the evolutionary point of view, humans aren't "better" than apes, any more than apes are "better" than fish or fish are "better" than amoebas. Each one fits into a niche without driving out the older species. It's only our bias that puts us on the top of an evolutionary ladder.
It's not really survival of the fittest. In fact, that which survives, survives. And when the environment changes, it stops surviving.
New poll! Are Americans intelligent? No says MrSquirrel!
I am an American, and it makes my gut wrench to think about this. People here are scared about fundamentalist muslims... when they need to look around and realize they're being controlled by the fundamentalist christians. Can't we just get all fundamentalists together so they can talk about their differences... then set the building on fire and bar the doors.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Damn damn dirty americans!
Didn't they see the movie?! apes came from MEN! BUT! Only after men came from apes..
Christ.
For the record, I'm conservative, I voted Republican in 2000 and 2004. Yes, it's all my fault, let's move on.
I'm against the idea of abortion but think it should be legal. I don't like flag burning, but I think an amendment against it is a silly idea. I don't care about gay marraige, it shouldn't be banned, but before we allow it, we need to take a careful look at all the societal and economic consequences.
All that said, I am also decidedly NON religious and think that Creationism and Intelligent Design are fairy tales for children. PLEASE do not color me and all the other conservative red stater's in with the religious right. They're not connecting with reality, and I feel bad for those people who continue to blindly follow the paths of organized religion (which has done OH SOOOO much good for the world over the last several years). <sp<sp>We don't ALL live in Je$u$land (perhaps geographically, but not mentally), and some of us choose to follow science, watch the Discovery Channel instead of Pat Robert$on, and sleep in on $unday morning rather than gathering to worship at the altar of Chri$t.
Thus endeth my rant. Thanks for listening. Go Darwin.
So is, and neither has, the theory that the Earth is roughly spherical and orbits the Sun once a year.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
No, it wasn't. It was the evidence.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
"In a 2005 poll covering 33 countries, Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish respondents)..."
So actually it should be: In a 2005 poll covering 33 countries _Turks_ are the least likely... Just that the Americans score low doesn't mean they won..
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
Humans are humans, apes are apes, and monkeys are monkeys. You can tell monkeys from apes and humans by their prominent tails.
It is very sad that some textbooks do include a phrase along the lines of humans ascended from apes. Inclusion in a text book does not make it an accurate statement.
Humans and apes evolved separately from a common ancestor. Apes went their way, and we went ours.
Please keep this in mind when you are discussing evolution with friends and foes. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. If we can get this across, we will have won a battle in this long fought war over ignorance.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Well, I hope you included that smiley at the end of your post because you know that last quote is just silly.
Question is, what essential difference is there between what you might consider a "primitive human" and an ape? You do know that apes can use tools, right? You know that they have social structures and even (primitive) language, right? And all major physiological structures correspond to humans. So what do you think it is that serves as a evolutionary barrier to between apes such as the chimpamzee and humans?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I'm also told by evolutionists that Americans descended from the English. And yet here we are, fifty million of us. Shouldn't we all be Americans by now?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Mod parent up. It's comforting when people actually see that this is the case.
Sadly some people like the taste of various primates. So far the advocates of the theories of Tastiness haven't made many inroads when it comes to having their views incorporated into general evolution however.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
You know those jocks that beat up nerds in highschool for being "too smart"? Those jocks are running America. And you are still the nerds.
--
make install -not war
Well, I think the answer to that one is quite basic...
People LIKE to fuck....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I adjust the graphic for clarity.
e fz2.jpg
http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=redvsblu
-- Boycott Shell
"It hasn't actually been proven, so it's not entirely ...."
All the evidence supports it, and none contradicts it: it's a very strong explanatory framework. It's been pretty much proven. It is disingenous to use shades of the definition of "theory" to get around that evolution in the common meaning is fact. And yes, those who refuse to "abandon ideas" that have long since been proven false do not deserve any sort of respect for doing this. It is not very justifiable.
Where were you when the voynix came?
It's called a fork in development. Consider OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
So, if we try to compare the history of Linux to Evolution, doesn't that then say that all things were started from the Supreme Being? Linus? Careful with your comparisons!
You could conclude they're religious fanatics who refuse to accept current scientific understanding...
But if I were asked this question, I may appear also in the 'no' or 'not sure' category. I find the lack of 'intermediate' species, (like fish who are starting to grow legs, or whatever) difficult for me to accept. I'm asking myself why these species are not common in nature. Does that mean I cannot accept scientific understanding, or does it mean I'm observent enough to have more questions?
You might want to provide a real link to back up that assertion. Degrading mustard gas shells from the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's do not constitute WMD, no matter how much you silly conservatives try to say differently.
Hans Blix said they didn't have them. Scott Ried said they didn't have them. And except for a long forgotten stock pile of shells, they have never been found. No nukes, no mobile weapons labs, no sarin gas missle. Nothing.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Assuming that "Americans" is a single, proper noun, no.
Since "Americans" could be singular or plural, either is correct depending upon what you interpret it as being.
Registered Linux user #421033
Yes it has. Evolution is no longer just a theory, it's an observation: we've observed it happen in both artificial and natural systems. It is now on a firmer footing than most if not all physical 'theories' bar the second law of thermodynamics.
I am not much into religions, but if there is one somewhere that refers to God as the "master coder" I might have to take a look. If the followers think he codes in VB however I will have to pass.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Says who?
Sorry, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
I have a hard time thinking humans came from apes.
Humans did not "come from" apes. Humans are apes.
We only came from apes in the same sense that German Shepards came from dogs, something I'll hazard you don't even question.
KFG
I know it's going totally off topic, but come now. Do you have to recite that to yourself each night, to make sure you keep believing it?
So, all along in the run up to the war, you thought we'd find 500 discarded (in quantities of one or two) pre-first-Gulf-War weapons that couldn't have been fired even if someone wanted to? You were really hoping that we could launch a war resulting in the deaths of more than 2500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, in order to find what our own defense officials say no longer qualified as weapons of mass destruction? That's really what you were expecting? Man, I wish someone had clued me in...
I would refer you to Stephen Gould's article Evolution as Fact and Theory.
- and-theory.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
See, we don't really have evidence that humans evolved from apes.
Micro-evolution is a theory.
Human evolution from apes is a hypothesis.
People are free to believe what they would like. But the growing anti-religion sentiment common among scientists certainly encouraged the idea of human evolution from apes.
Can you cite this?
I have heard nothing of this in the press despite it being so pro-war that some journalists managed to get away with some quite shoddy reporting because it supported the party line.
I hold a religious belief that is Bible based, but I don't reject 'firmly established scientific truths'. I model my faith as the Bible describes at Hebrews 11:1 - "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not yet beheld." (Emphasis added) So, real faith isn't gullible. The Bible says that faith is supposed to be based on solid evidence and reasonable assurance that you've proven to yourself.
Prove it.
It seems likely that the ancestor we share with the other great apes would itself be caetgorized as an ape. So we evolved from apes, but technically, we still are a species of apes. The other great apes are not closer relate to each other than they are to us.
"The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States."
;)
I find the reason is the fact that most churches teach creationism rather than evolution. It has nothing to do with politics. Politicians just like them mask themselves in religion since all these church going do gooders (see The Bible Belt) like to see people that believe in the same thing they beleive in.
Personally IMHO (ok, in my flamebait opinion) Religion is nothing more than a means of War. Most wars are religion based. More people die in religious wars than drunk drivers, cancer combine.
Thats my Jihad and I'm sticking to it!
In Sweden apparently only roughly 80% "belive" in evolution. What the heck is next, people not beliving in relativity or gravity. Should we have a survey to see how many people belive in the number zero? Maybe atoms are just hocus pokus, and the earth is flat! Come on people, evolution isn't something you belive in or not, it just _is_. Just like any other scientific _theory_. As oppose to making things up or beliving in everything that is written down, or even worse, something written down and badly translated! Evolution is a theory, a damn fine at that, with all what that entails, and no religion can make me feel different about that, or any other scientific theory.
The same reason there are still different species of apes coexisting, or apes and whales, or people with different coloured hair, etc... evoluion does not require "weaker" species to die out. That only happens when the resources are constrained so that only the fittest survive. Additionally, "survival of the fittest" is a relative concept - fittest for which environment? Humans are not universally the "fittest" species for all environments.
Yeah, yeah, evolution is only a theory. So is gravity. From wikipedia:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
What were the actual percentages of Americans who did/didn't believe in Evolution? It sounds like this could be a relative thing - i.e. creationists are in the minority in the US, but they represent a greater portion of the population in the US than in other countries - in which case the headline would be misleading. The actual journal article isn't available for free online, but maybe someone with a subscription (or someone who could drop $10 for an article regarding a Slashdot debate) could help us out and give us some actual numbers here.
On a side note, I believe the idea of evolution, but as has been stated before, it is technically a *theory*. Believe what you think is right, but don't shove your ideas down other people's throats. That goes for both the religious and the non-religious folks out there.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
If you really think all the world's problems could be solved just by getting rid of this one man (and maybe the rest of his administration), then you're a fool.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
I'm having such a hard time finding someone who wants to groom me and eat my parasites.
Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
If the right-wing echo chamber repeats it a million times, does that count as evidence?
Hey numbnuts: unwind your panties, this article is from SCIENCE, not the NYT. They just re-ran it, along with probably thousands of newspapers in the country.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Did humans evolve? American's didn't.
This is not criticizing either the followers of Christ, God or Darwin but quite honestly, most Americans didn't evolve anywhere past 1850, nothing changed from single people (people living up a hill driving beat-up trucks that can't spell for crap are very common in my area), corporations (it's still the friendly corporate culture where you don't need to work very hard to get somewhere, just get to know the boss or his daughter) to the government (implementing nazi-like restrictions, cowboy-like sherrifs) and especially the phonographic recording industry being mad that MP3's took over the 45rpm.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Of the 500 or so found, near 100 percent have been of the stock that was being destroyed after Gulf I. They no longer contain nerve agents, have been disarmed but not destroyed, and were found as one and twos scattered around the country. You can find more unexploded Civil War ordinances in America's fields than the supposed WMDs found since the invasion of Iraq.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
There's a junk science fad on right now. I expect to be modded down severely for pointing out that the global warming idea is not supported by evidence, and it is a wonderful example of assumptions driving the data-collection.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Dishonest NYT - The NYT publishes a news story that backhandedly casts the Bush Administration in a bad light.
...
You have made it sound SO that i am compelled even to believe bush. adm. is honest.
It was not a problem when that 'honest' bush adm was undercutting your country's first amendment while claiming to be doing otherwise, undercutting your social security while transferring cash into their supporter corporation cronies and countless more
So is nyt dishonest, in that they have published an article that IMPLYINGLY condemns bush adm ?
At least THEY DO NOT LIE AND SEND YOUR PEOPLE TO DIE OFF IN FOREIGN HELLS FOR THE PROFIT OF SOME OIL BOSSES.
Read radical news here
As long as we're nitpicking the submission, I particularly liked:
Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish respondents)
So, second least likely, then? Or do the Turks not count as people?
EOM
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
Hey, 1982 just called — they want their, etc., etc.
Since "Americans" could be singular or plural
I think my brain just exploded.
How can we reconcile the report mentioned above, with this report In the linked report "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll."
Each of which pre-dated the First Gulf War, and had not been maintained, making them useless for the function for which they were originally intended, the function that had us so scared that we invaded the country. They are not "partially diminished", they are "functionaly disabled non-weapons".
The claim was that Saddam had continued his WMD programs after the first war and had continued to build and maintain an arsenal. Everyone knows he had one before the first war, and that he did a bad job of accounting for them, and nobody says or said this wasn't so.
It is that claim which has been proven false, and the discovery of only old, unmaintaned, useless weapons actually reinforces the fact that the original claim was a lie.
Saddam had no working chemical weapons when we invaded, that major motivation for the war was a sham and lie, and since you actually have the facts in front of you but choose to misinterpret them this shows that of the 50% who believe it to be true you are part of the sad subset who wants to believe that it is true.
The enemies of Democracy are
Umm, no. RTFA. It's about statements made by Robert G. Americans, Jr.
Ride the skies
OpenBSD forked from NetBSD, but they all share a common ancestry. ;)
This poo is cold.
Which bugs me every time evolution subject pops up on slashdot.
Common. This is technology/science oriented site for tech/science folks.
AND YET IT CREATES LONG, HEATED, EMOATIONAL DEBATES. Anyone cares explaining why?
One can observe evolution from very simple mathematical models, like cell automation (eg 'LIFE' simulation) all the way to genetic programming models and up. So why very, very complex environment (a.k.a. EARTH) makes evolution questionable for so many folks? My take is because we can't grasp sheer complexity of it.
The Perversion of Knowledge:
http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/basic/book_detail .jsp?isbn=0813342805
and
Science in the Third Reich:
http://www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?chunk=25& mtype=&qisbn=1859734219&S=R&bid=8761280764&pbest=& pqtynew=&page=1&matches=10&qsort=p
or
http://tinyurl.com/e8en8
Anybody who doesn't get that a government bending scientific inquiry to fit its doctrines is a Bad Thing should read these. Effin' scary. (As an aside, anybody who believes that Reagan or even the US as a whole as a major/necessary component in bringing down the former USSR, should also read the first reference above. That government was so internally conflicted and confounded on its own merits, it's a wonder it didn't implode sooner through sheer dysfunctionality. But I digress,...)
It's the same magic that allows one half of a family to move to America, and the other half to stay in Europe!
See, it's not all or nothing. Evolution happens to populations. When one population becomes isolated from another population, they will evolve differently given enough time.
"Hans Blix said they didn't have them. Scott Ried said they didn't have them"
In the months prior to the US invasion, Blix's reports detailed new discoveries of prohibited WMD components. As for Scott Reid, I've never heard of him. His name made me think of Scott Ritter, who was paid large sums of money to lie about Saddam not having any WMD. Who is Reid?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Obviously humans in America have been the same since the beginning of time (about 200 years ago). History before that didn't exist and evidence was planted by the devil to trick us. Us being "U.S."
The other contries had evolution for billions of years, however, so of course they believe it. The Europeans are clearly evolved from apes.
So you refuse to accept the mountians of evidence for evolution, offer no proof for the religious nonsense version of things, yet its ok to for people to continue believing THAT without proof?
Yes, as a matter of fact people should abandon ideas that are central to their religon when they are proven false and inaccruate.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
"We haven't."
My favorite thing about the current administration is that they believe that they CAN spread democracy by military force, and the tens of thousands that die in the process are simply collateral in the birth pains of the new middle east, while they CAN'T support federally funded stem-cell research that will save more lives than it destroys -- if you consider an unborn fetus living.
In essence, the lives and well-being of Iraqis that have already been born are worth less than "potential" American lives. I'm just wondering when condoms will be considered weapons of mass destruction for preventing the birth of thousands of sperm - each one deserves a chance! I mean, unless it's dirty Islamo-fascist foreigner sperm.
Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB
I wonder what the outcome would be had people been polled with questions that allow for the possibility of Theistic evolution beliefs (the other popular theory besides creationism and naturalistic evolution). I can imagine that many religious people answered the question as a creationist, despite the fact that they believe man was created by God, but has also evolved.
I am one of those Americans that believes some things could have evolved, but I do not believe we came from apes. Where is the missing link?
Intelligent Design
I guess I often think of something I heard someone say: "If humans evolved from apes...why are there still apes?"
For the same reason we have German Shorthaired Pointers, and yet still have contemporary wolves and coyotes. Common ancestors, and branches in the tree. Isn't that easier to digest than imagining semi-modern human-ish primates just magically appearing out of nowhere? It sure is for me.
Your pal,
Occam.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"If the right-wing echo chamber repeats it a million times, does that count as evidence?"
I have no idea. I stay away from Rush Limbaugh and the right wing. It's a lot more interesting to hear what the left wing says about the facts of Iraq's (former) WMD threat:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
""He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002"
That's just a couple. There are plenty more where this came from.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Seems like a toss-up to me.
in evolution because I personally evolved from a lower life form--I used to be a Republican.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Have you considered that perhaps it's not so much as a mental illness, but perhaps we're seeing an evolutionary split between homo sapiens that do have brains powerful enough to understand basic scientific principles, and cause/effect relationships, and homo sapiens that can't think any further than primitive "gods"? Sure, religions can certainly be defined by mental illness (talking to non-existent people/"gods"/saints/whatever, having firm beliefs in completely illogical and bizarre things, etc.).
There are evolutionary theories regarding brain capacity in primates, so is it really that far fetched to think that we have old humans, and new, more intelligent humans at this point? Sure, we won't see any specization for thousands of years, if ever, but I can definitely see where this is one trait that can and will be emphasized through breeding (I would never consider marrying and breeding a religious person, for example.)
mind people rejecting evolution.
as long as they're consistent.
In the event of a bird flu outbreak in humans, they should not ever take a vaccine or medicine for it.
There win-win.
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
All of the scientific evidence points to evolution. No evidence besides the Bible point to the Earth being 6,000 years old. The Germ Theory of Disease is also just a theory. But were would medicine be if people still thought that sickness was caused by the Devil?
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
It is now official. Netcraft confirms: Intelligent Design is dying
.003% of the worlds population. This is consistent with the population of the southern United States.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Intelligent Design community when IDC confirmed that Intelligent Design market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all people. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Intelligent Design has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Intelligent Design is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Really Cool Test for Plausibility.
You don't need to be the Amazing Jonathan to predict Intelligent Design's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Intelligent Design faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design is dying. Things are looking very bad for Intelligent Design. As many of us are already aware, Intelligent Design continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Intelligent Design leader Pope Benedict XVI states that there about are 2 billion believers of Christianity. How many believers of Intelligent Design are there? Let's see. The number of Christians who believe in Intelligent Design versus Evolution posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 1 to 10000. Therefore there are about 2 billion/ 10000 = 200000 believers. The approximate population of the world is 6 Billion. 200000 / 6 Billion * 100 =
All major surveys show that Intelligent Design has steadily declined in Believers. Intelligent Design is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Intelligent Design is to survive at all it will be among the ignorant and cultists. Intelligent Design continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save Intelligent Design at this point in time. For all practical purposes, GOD is dead. Where is your God now
Fact: *Intelligent Design is dying Where is your God now?
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
No, it's the Teacher's Union. In most states in the US, the Teacher's Union is, by far, the biggest contributor to state elections. If you cheese them off, you've pretty much lost the money battle and thus the war.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Sheesh... c'mon. Do you have no history of US politics? Why didn't conservatives cry rape when Nixon went down?? Because they never EMBRACED Nixon. He was NOT a conservative, he was merely a republican. Just like Kennedy (John F, not Teddy) was not a liberal, he was a moderate. Just like Bill Clinton was a moderate.
And years from now, these hood-winked conservatives are gonna wonder why the f' they nominated George W. He's more like his father, who was also a moderate.
The Republican party post-Goldwater died in '88 when the Bush family ascended to the throne and have tried to destroy everything Reagan built.
"In the months prior to the US invasion, Blix's reports detailed new discoveries of prohibited WMD components." - which in January of 2003, turned out to be old buried mustared gas shells from the Iran-Iraq war that no one realized was there. Blix's final report said there was no evidence of WMD.
And yes, I was referring to Ritter (Ried is completely unrelated figure in Canadian politics - Freudian slip).
Again, you had better provide links to to show evidence of your allegations, especially about Ritter. That's the stuff of a libel suit.
Right now, you are just repeating the lie
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
http://www.equip.org/free/JAE230.pdf
It should be noted that the ancestor the is thought to be common between humans and modern apes (chimpanzees in particular) *is* extinct. But as you say, it is concievable that the ancestor could still exist along with its decendents.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Clearly it does. Some moron modded him informative. =P
This is the actual report saying no WMDs were found in Iraq.
Damn liberal CIA. Always twisting the truth. Gotta listen to Fox News, because, you know, they're Fair and Balanced.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I can't tell if you're trolling, being sarcastic, or are just stupid^Wretarded^Wmisinformed.
When most scientists agree on something, you had better bring some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary in order to get it labeled "junk science".
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
...is Buddhism, that claims that reality is merely a construct built from logic.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The United States of America was founded primarily by 2 groups of people: profiteers and the hard-core religious. Religion still plays a large role in this country. Although many disagree, evolution is a direct contradiction to religion. Religion in the USA is not going to disappear overnight so this poll result is no surprise. Calling Americans dumb is just plain ignorant and arrogant.
This always amazes me. I mean, all the mammals have basically the same parts, and humans have over 99% DNA similarity with chimpanzees.
One can puzzle over things like how the basic structures of animals evolved, but the human/ape thing isn't even an issue.
This survey would have yielded almost exactly the same results if taken during the Clinton years, which seems to be the preferred Slashdot benchmark for awesomeness.
That's so true!
Nathan Friedly
We have DNA. We win! ;)
:T:R:A:N:S:
If you really think that's what GP said, then you're a fool.
Most religions have no problem with evolution, it seems mostly confined to some protestant cults.
I think the basic problem is the "personal God" which can be reached by the individual through the Bible without the interference of professionals. It sound very nice idea (to get rid of the Church!), but it means that a 2000 year old book should be read by laymen, including people with little exposure to Literature. These people will have a hard time reading a multilayered text, and do the necessary transformations from a totally different society.
Science and religion are not incompatible. Long ago I attended a California state university, the dean of the chemistry department was a Roman Catholic priest. A local parish priest as a matter of fact. There are extremists on both sides, the notion that hard science and religion are incompatible is just propoganda. Many of the most famous scientists in history were also religious.
;-)
a tican_observe_000716.html
To prove there is no God we must prove a negative, which math and science itself says cannot be done. Where science and religion collide is in the acceptance of theories, evolution for example. Evolution is a theory, a widely accepted and highly plausible one, but still a theory. Even if evolution is historically accurate science cannot prove God was not a guiding factor in its direction, i.e. evolution being God's mechanism of creation. A "day" in genesis not being the 24-hour period we know and love. God was after all communicating with primitive sheep herders when Genesis was written, he would probably use different words when communicating with a modern biologist. When one says science and religion are incomaptible, one is exercising a leap of faith just like the most fundamentalist literal interpreter of the bible. I think neither extreme has it right. Of course I have no proof.
From the Vatican Observatory:
"Analyzing the space rocks, or training the Vatican Observatory's $3 million Arizona telescope on a distant galaxy, are both ways of gaining 'a closer appreciation of the personality of the creator', he said in an interview."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
It was in the press, I read several stories about it, but not for very long because it was so uneventful that even the administration's PR department couldn't get any political bank out of it.
All they found was pre-Gulf War I stock, their chemical payloads degraded and useless as will happen to these agents if they are not actively maintained. In one case the ones who found it actually breached the container of sarin gas, but were unharmed because it wasn't sarin gas any more.
All it proves is first, Saddam used to have a chemical weapon stockpile, a fact that hasn't been in doubt since the 80s, and second that the first gulf war and the subsequent inspections were sufficient to end his weapons program. So no wonder they didn't want to play it up.
If they had actually found WMD, then they wouldn't be appologizing over the intelligence failures while Bush's approval rating slumps, now would they? They'd be trumpeting their amazing success on a daily basis! Thus do the Pres' most sypophantic supporters believe things that even the Pres doesn't believe. Which saddens me.
The enemies of Democracy are
To the Methodist Church... the Scientific Methodist Church.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
If humans evolved from apes, where are all of the apes that are in mid-evolution?!
I mean, besides the Bush administration.
That's the question the rest of us are asking :)
Anyone who thought we went to war because Saddam might have had some mustard gas was and is a moron.
We went to war because Iraq continuously breached the negotiated cease fire for a decade and we got tire of air bombing them on a weekly basis and supporting an embargo that was internationally unpopular.
thanks. you're right of course, rushed to post! ;)
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
I'm always annoyed by headlines like this. "Americans say..." when we're talking about a third of them. What, so the 15% of Icelanders who say the same thing aren't enough to use the phrase "Icelanders say..." but 33% of the polled people in the US is?
Yes, yes, the headline space is short. But how about something like "More in US than Iceland doubt evolution" or similar? "America says" implies something that just isn't the case.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The greatest threat to personal freedom and responsibility is the fundamentalists from any belief system.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
were are the links in todays ape's evolution line? last time i looked none had been found. which is my primary beef with the way evolution is preached today. in all this time not one link for the ape line has been found, not even by mistake? seems a bit odd that no matter what, it's always human links found. kind of a bit too perfect if you ask me. there is no money in finding the ape missing link i was told... fine, but you'd think that science wouldn't care and one would have been found by now.
Frankly, I don't CARE whether the guy who makes my burgers, does my taxes, or fixes my computers is a creationist. In fact, I really can't see much of any reason why it matters for anyone in any usual profession what one believes about evolution. My doctor, for example, is one of those nasty fundamentalist creationists that people keep bitching about, and yet he manages to be a very good doctor.
Could it be that there is something bigger than practical concerns at play here? Could it be that the over-the-top efforts to get evolution taught in schools (while ignoring the much more interesting implications of the Big Bang -- so much for steady state!) are part of the larger Enlightenment project of declaring itself as the sole source and final arbiter of truth and meaning?
Nawww... That wouldn't be why the president of the national academy of sciences descended upon some kids science fair project a few years back when it raised questions about Darwinian evolution ... It's just Good Science.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
This is an illustration of one of the greatest failings of the U.S. system of primary education, where the emphasis is on packing an increasingly large number of facts to be regurigated (on simplistic, multiple guess, standardized tests) into the curriculum, and not providing deep analysis of HOW we know these facts, and WHY they suggest our most current theories. For instance, try the following experiment one day; ask people you know - Is the Earth round? How do we know?
.... and when you press them, most of them have no clue, other than that's what they were told. It's not too hard (although after 9-11, I think the security standards may have changed) to go to the top of the Empire State Building with a theodolite, and measure the angle below flat the horizion makes from that height, and then calculate the ratio of the size of the earth to the E.S.B. If you don't trust the height of the E.S.B. as published, you can use the exact same technique from the ground to measure ITS height, and the size of the earth follows. Instead, we waste large amounts of time teaching the periodicity of the cosine function as a number to be memorized, vs. where you might actually bother to USE a cosine, or similiar triangles, or other such topics.
There will be a quick regurgiation of what they read, or were told, or "it's obvious!"
The key is, we don't teach "how we know something" - the numerous "it's just a theory" comments illustrate how rarely known basic scientific reasoning methods are.
You misunderstand. The administration sent people to *kill* in foreign hells for the profit of oil bosses. Big difference.
an ill wind that blows no good
"In a 2005 poll covering 33 countries, Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish respondents)" So, in other words, American's are the SECOND least likely, NOT the least likely. Yet another example of semantically altering the story to sensationalize it. Kudos. Oh wait.
Now with more sodium!!
Thats because the study compares America to developed nations.
There are scientific explanations that would allow Humans to be here forever, and no evolution being involved, just as there are theories of the creation of space without any singularities involved. I personally do believe in the fact, that human evolved from animals, but there was something else involved. Something that made the change. This mutation from which species like us were born, arguing about our own creation. Like some thermofusion reactions occuring on Earth. And we can always blame the Goa'uld!
There are two kinds of people - those who are radioactive and those who have already decayed..
I for one welcome our ape overlords.
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
In any case, I don't think the prevailing theory is that humans evolved from present-day apes, but that humans and apes (and chimpanzees... basically all primates) evolved from a common ancestor species.
http://outcampaign.org/
A fine anti-Bush troll/joke, but a few facts are in order....
WASHINGTON - All year, the government has promised stepped-up testing to see if bird flu wings its way to the United States. On Monday, the Bush administration announced those tests got a hit -- but the suspect isn't the much-feared Asian strain of the virus.
In almost the same breath, Agriculture Department officials announced that routine testing had turned up the possibility of the H5N1 virus in the two swans on the shore of Michigan's Lake Erie -- but that genetic testing has ruled out the so-called highly pathogenic version that has ravaged poultry and killed at least 138 people elsewhere in the world.
"We do not believe this virus represents a risk to human health," declared Ron DeHaven, administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. "This is not the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus that has spread through much of other parts of the world."
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
...until he comes up with a link...or any proof of his claims at all...
True; my random guess is if they were classified (and most likely they have been; I am too lazy to look) they would be considered a seperate species of ape (as opposed to a gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan, or human). When people scream, "they say people descended from apes!" they are usually referring to a modern day primate. What I wanted to point out is that we are NOT descended from any (currently existing) primate or ape, which is what a suprisingly large number of people (both pro and anti evolution) believe. Luckily if you don't believe in evolution, you would probably think the classification process is bogus as well :-)
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
At the risk of loosing my Karma again, I will try to explain this fun stuff.
First point, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. The assumption that evolution is science fact is not entirely correct. There are holes in it that leave some people doubting that has nothing to do with faith. I would like to point out that there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I do not believe that anyone doubts micro-evoluion. It is usually a question of lesser species evolving into newer and higher species.
Second point, this despite the emotional response, is nothing like what Copernicus or Galileo faced. People that believe in evolution are not being hunted down and being theatened with death. From the article, over 50% of Americans do belive in evolution. Copernicus and Galileo were in the extreme minority of their times of probally 5-10 percent believing that the Sun was the center of the solar system.
-largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science
This is quite a politican statement in itself. This is obviously trying to blame a way of thought, right or wrong, in a tone that comes across as demeaning. I think that this rather shows the uniqueness of America. Where you are free to believe what you want; wrong, right, or indifferent. There are some people that will never change despite the facts. But most people if approached in a rational, non-condescending manner, will listen and be willing to debate. However, name calling and elitism usually doesn't work and usually hardens people's resolve that they are correct. As the proverb goes, it is easier to attarct bees with honey than vinegar.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
No surprise there!
3 8 ) and hear it from a USA compatriot. ;-)
Though we're constantly being called european elitists and our education 'snobbery', the fact is, education is far worse in the USA then in alot of other countries (and certainly compared by European standards).
But hey, don't believe me; go watch 'stupid in america' ( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=15003
The reasons are many, but basically come down to this: the schoolsystem and education-mechanism sucks, and, as TFA says, science and knowledge as a whole gets corrupted by christian fundamentalism (like Muslim fundamentalism does in some near-east countries) and politics.
No surprise, then, that more then 10% of the american populace can't find their own country on a worldmap...and it's not like it's a *small* country.
Christian fundamentalism and the 'politically correct' mentality (often also influenced by the same bible-driven nonsense) will see to it that the USA keeps losing ground in matters of education, science, and eventually in technology. The only thing keeping this from happening already, is the sheer amount of money that is being spend; but money alone will not solve this.
Mind you, the downfall is already under way: I remember another article on slashdot saying that the last years, articles in scientific papers came less and less from the USA, and more and more from Europe and Asia. Every year, the comparison with USA children with others from western countries gets more and more negative for the USA, etc.
All in all, it's a bit sad, really, though with those redneck-bible-belt states, I can't say it's really a surprise. We have fought for centuries to get rid of the christian dogma's, the church and biblical 'truths'...and you guys are embracing it again voluntarily! Now, that's nuts!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
dude, at least provide proper attribution: that was Tina Fey on SNL's Weekend Update.
Erm, AT&T surely?
Better let Tony Blair know then. After all, he said (and I quote): "I have to accept we haven't found them and we may never find them..." Oh, and the Chief US weapons inspector concluded: Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion. (Both references are to be found on the Beeb amongst many others).
I guess I won't be a monkey's uncle after all..
Nathan Friedly
This is why I'm sad to admit I'm an American.
Evolution will only be around for so long. I'm creating a robots that can swim faster than the fastest fish, climb trees faster than squirrels, outrun cheetahs, out... tortoise tortoises, and burn all the trees down with a sweet flamethrower. These robots are set to not deviate from their original blueprints (they only replicate a new one when an older one breaks) and they original blueprints are stored on N+100,000,000,000 redundancy systems that use globe-spanning clustering in case of disaster. It'd take an act of god to mess that up -- technology rules!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
The administration really stood revealed a couple of years ago when Senator Waxman's (D-California) report pointed out the inaccuracies and flat-out lies encompassed in Federally-funded school programs designed to foster abstinence from sex outside of marriage.
My personal favorite is the "fact" that human beings are endowed with 48 chromosomes, 24 each from (of course lawfully wedded) Mom and Dad. I experienced a true revelation about what's been wrong with me for all these years. I only have 46 chromosomes. I seem to be missing two whole chromosomes that conservative babies have as their birthright. I suspect maybe I lost out on the homophobia chromosome and the anti-evolution chromosome. Or maybe it was the war chromosome. I'm not sure. Of course it doesn't really matter because the same scientific curriculum asserts that as a woman, I derive happiness and success from relationships, while the males of the species derive theirs from their accomplishments. So scientific accuracy probably shouldn't matter to me.
What saddens me most is the way they've debased the perfectly good word, "theory." While once it signified a set of ideas to be tested and proven or disproven, now it simply refers to something that may or may not be true.
We're funding this stuff with our tax dollars, folks. Why should it come as a surprise that they're going to want us to foot the bill for inaccurate portrayals of evolution and natural selection?
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
Yes, they found some old stuff, but it had decayed to the point of being usless of a weapon. It's not a weapon of mass destruction if it can't cause mass destruction.
If we evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and apes?
It appears that one exercises more faith believing in evolution that creationism.
Evolution is a theory which happens to be supported by evidence. Nobody practicing the scientific method would claim to "believe in" evolution - they very well might say that it is the hypothesis that best fits the facts, but none of them would accept it as fact.
Get the shit out of your eyes, retard. There is Science mag link. Can't comment on what isn't there, can we?
an ill wind that blows no good
...but first I need to perfect a comment submission system that doesn't allow butchered sentences... like: "I'm creating a robots". Go technology, yeah!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
To my mind, they're as much idolaters as any Bronze Age primitive bowing before a golden statue. Their idol isn't a graven image in stone or metal, but in paper and ink, and no less false for it. They worship the Bible, not God.
Ah, here it is: Biblical Literalism Is Idolatry.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
what would the score of iraq under saddam hussein have been.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
I think one of the main problems lies in the question: "Do you believe in Evolution?" as if it was the same as you beliving in God or a superior power (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you wish).
Evolution, like most good science, is subject to verification. It is not a matter of if you believe in Evolution, it is a question of if you understand the theory of evolution and if so, do you accept it as scientifically valid (you can verify its findings) or if you don't, what evidence do you have that counters the presented theory. You don't have to believe in science, you understand it.
Now look, our understanding of how species develop and change is changing and (dare I say) evolving. There is a new model of how celluar regulation, DNA and RNA, etc. all interact, and the interactions may be more complex that mere random mutation. But, mutation (random or not) is still at the heart of evolution, and the evidence for that is stronger than ever.
Now, your belief or faith in a higher power or God isn't subject to verification. You can't verify that God exists (there's a long argument for it, but if you could, God wouldn't quite be God, in a sense). So, you have faith or a belief in God, but it's not the same.
Sadly, scientific understanding is much harder than belief. All belief requires is a small leap of faith, understanding requires skepticism, study, analysis, comparison, and a constant ability to accept new ideas in place of old ones. It's hard to study and completely understand any scientific idea (hell, I don't know it all about evolution), but it's really easy to just doubt and say "God said so, so there."
And because of that, we will always have doubters. I'm sad to say it, but I think it is likely true.
I wonder if creationism is promoted in other countries with the same resources (money) and energy that it is here in the US. I doubt it.
Taking a page from the classic mystery writers, lets consider motive, opportunity and means.
Motive is clear: political power and money. The religious right is closely allied to the Republican Party. This is not the same as saying the creationists speak for the rank and file Republicans, but they speak to the party leaders, who listen to them, because they're solid Republican voters. Few Republican leaders in states with high populations of evangelicals would get up and say creation science is hooey; they'll either agree or they'll talk their elliptical way around the subject.
Opportunity: Our Constitution has, since the end of the 18th century, provided for non-establishment of religion. Because of the early separation of church and state, Americans are less cynical about religion; nor are there great depths of anti-clericalism that there is in places where religious authorities once had greater power. In short, the American body politic lacks antibodies to church meddling in secular affairs. This will change. There has never been a war on Christianity in this country, but militant people professing Christianity will take us there.
Means: Republican leaders wield tremendous media power through their corporate connections, to the point that you'll see the exact same phrase pop up simultaneously from multiple supposedly "independent" news analysts. Clearly they're reading the same faxes and emails. They can use this coordinated power to legitimize the views of the extreme religious right, or at least blunt their horrific novelty. In return, they get energy and money from that wing.
This is not to cast aspersions on the political philosophy of conservatism, which I think would be a considerable improvement over what we have now. This is what happens to a political philosophy when it becomes a label cynically used to unite a power base whose members don't have a lot in common.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The Conservative position in the US is confused because so many of the early settlers were members of religious minorities who were trying to leave behind persecution. The tone of American society was set by aristocratic settlers who were of the Whig persuasion - they were sceptical, agnostic, and the US began with a separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, the members of the religious minorities tended to be poorly educated (and were, for instance, ignorant of the Biblical languages) while the lack of "mainstream" European religious thought meant there was little middle ground. I think this has come back to bite us, with the US rather polarised between believers from intellectually backward religious traditions on the one hand, and an educated elite that despises religion on the other. The Episcopalians, mainstream in outlook compared to Europe, are a minority Church.
I'm not in the business of suggesting that Bush senior had the sense not to pursue Saddam Hussein because he was an educated Episcopalian, while his son supports a much less intellectually rigorous brand of Christianity. That is simplistic. But I do think the US needs to take a long hard look at why it so often identifies as Conservatives people who espouse an anti-intellectual brand of Christinaity which is based on a lack of scholarship, especially in the original texts of the Bible, while complaining about the obscurantism and backwardness of Islamic fundamentalists. I think the US was a better place when its politicians were educated agnostics, who saw one of their jobs as preventing the fundamentalists from asserting their (fundamentally anti-democratic) power.
Pining for the fjords
My guess? Finding a new ape ancestor doesn't get the same kind of headlines as finding a human ancestor.
That's not to say we haven't found any ape ancestors, just that they didn't make the front page of the New York Times or anything like that.
The fricking CIA say no WMDs.
End of story.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
A quote of the Declaration of Independence.
And the US Constitution does not seperate church and state.
\
Look, they need a generation of people who are willing, eager even to give up their lives for the benefit of the leadership. How better to get a couple of hundred thousand people to head on over to another country and sacrifice their lives securing em, lets say, oil resources. You tell them they're protecting their country from the other group of religious zealots and that they'll be going to heaven when they do get blown to pieces all over the road.
It isn't in the leadership's interest to have an educated, intelligent, secular and questioning populace.
Deleted
Hate to worry you, mate, but you're reasoning from A to purple. If evolution is the truth, it is exactly as likely that there is an afterlife as if it is not. If an almighty God created us all 4000 years ago...we still might just be fused brains, with no soul and nothing beyond death. The two questions are completely separate.
Of course, I can hardly blame you, as you're far from the only one making that mistake, and in fact, that's a lot of the problem. There are far too many people, especially in our dysfunctional country, who believe that either all of the Bible is true or none of it is true. Of course, the truth is in between. The truth is always in between, and things are (almost) always shades of grey, not black or white. It's just that people don't want to deal with that kind of ambiguity, because that would be too much like thinking.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
...Hate to nitpick, but honestly. Guess we haven't gotten as far as we thought.
Snazzier than a Three-Piece Suit: http://kf.rainydaycommunications.net/
It's sad that this got voted "Insightful" on Slashdot... Please read the Wikipedia article on evolution and the talk.origins FAQ, they will answer your questions.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Well... given any fixed (sufficiently complex) formal system, there are true things you can't prove (Gödel), so in a sense you can't explain/understand them, unless you change to another formal system, which will again have other unprovable things.
The science deity isn't as omnipotent as some Others.
Actually, it isn't. Sabretooths were not tigers. They were cats all right, but not tigers; the name has fallen into disuse, and you might hear 'sabretooth', 'sabretooth cat' or 'smilodon', which last one I find quite delightful.
To properly answer your question, however, please clearly define 'species' and what the dividing line between the two is. I believe biologists tend to favour 'if two animals can breed together to produce fertile offspring, they're the same species'. In which case may I present to you a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua, both dogs, descended from the grey wolf, and invite you to speculate on how they might go about mating?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
This is a favorite of creationists.
... before we waste examples on you, please define CLEARLY and CONCISELY what you will accept as evidence of speciation.
"Ok, so you have piles of evidence of evolution. But what about SPECIATION."
So, then you show them evidence of speciation.
They reply, "That's not speciation. That's not a big enough change."
SOOOO
Seldom is the question asked: Is Americans evolving?
Maybe because the Science article requires a paid subscription or a one-time fee of $10.00 just to read it?
Your average non-scientist citizen is not likely to go and check all the sources to verify that, yes indeed, evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of species. So, to demand that this average citizen believe in evolution is to demand the same leap of faith as for that citizen to believe in creation
It seems to me the most appropriate solution to this problem is adequate science education in the public schools.
Why don't these polls include an "I don't know, I don't have time to check the facts, and it really doesn't matter in my everyday life" option? I think that would be the best response for a thinking non-scientist.
Did you read the article? These polls did include an 'I don't know' option.
Those "WMDs" were left over from the first Gulf War and by this point had degraded so much they were less dangerous than household chemicals. In order to be a WMD, the weapon must have the ability for mass destruction. 15-year-old sarin or mustard gas won't do it.
Basically it's you, Rick Santorum and Don Rumsfeld on one side claiming these validate the WMD saber rattling, and the rest of the world shaking its head sadly on the other side.
Remember when Republicans claimed the inspectors were incompetent because they couldn't find WMD in Iraq, and the US couldn't afford the millions of dollars to maintain sanctions on Iraq?
Which reminds me of... "Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
While I'm not going to defend those who don't accept evolution, would it be too much to ask for the NY Times to state the percentages are in actual numbers rather than the impossible to read graph?
The graph sort of indicates that the US evolution acceptance is about 70% which is lower than it should be, but higher than the tone of the article would lead you to think. This is typical of the NY Times in that they are quite certain that those in NY are smarter and more worldly than those in the rest of the country.
Also, I was surprised that only 85% of Icelanders believe in evolution.
I can prove evolution is true. Just look, a monkey typed the headline of this story: Did Humans Evolve? No, Says Americans
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anyone who thought we went to war because Saddam might have had some mustard gas was and is a moron.
Sure, anyone who believed the stated claims of the President, or of our Secretary of State at the UN, was and is a moron. Sadly this includes a lot of sitting UN members and our allies in the "coalition of the willing".
Anyone who believes that the American people would have supported the war without the fear-mongering about WMD was and is a moron. Without the WMD issue we would not be in Iraq, simple as that.
We went to war because Iraq continuously breached the negotiated cease fire for a decade and we got tire of air bombing them on a weekly basis and supporting an embargo that was internationally unpopular.
Actually we went to war in order to support a larger middle eastern agenda that in part involved having large military bases in a location strategically close to Iran and opening up the possibility of closing bases in Saudi Arabia which was and is becoming poltically undesireable.
But seriously, if you're trying to retrofit the violation of cease fire as our stated reason for invading, you're delusional. That was at best an afterthought, a half-arsed attempt to justify it legally even though the legal entity behind the breached clauses did not support the unilateral action taken. WMD were Reason #1 We Need To Invade Iraq Right Now.
The enemies of Democracy are
By whose definition is a sabertooth the same species as what we have today?
Species is often a blurry concept, especially when you move through time. Many organisms that CAN interbreed are still considered different species (i.e. grizzly bears and polar bears, tigers and lions, etc), which just shows how arbitrary the term is. But if they are different enough that they CAN'T interbreed, they are most certainly different species, by any definition.
My guess is a sabertooth couldn't interbreed with a modern tiger, but its a bit hard to test.
What exactly are you looking for? Someone to actually sit and physically observe something that takes hundreds of thousands of years to take place before their (very patient) eyes? Seems like you are just going to keep picking and choosing definitions words like "species" and "prove" to suit your needs.
BTW, chimps didn't "change" to orangutans.
I'm not religeous, at all, so perhaps I just don't get it. Why can't evolution be the process in which whatever diety you believe in produced us? For that matter, why couldn't the big bang be It's process?
Do you really think the "six days" were actually six twenty four hour periods? Couldn't it be six days as measured in some other way? Days on other planets are not 24 hours, so why would a day in Heaven (or wherever) be 24 hours? Couldn't six days actually be several billion years? Perhaps it was meant to be six awake-rest cycles but was interpreted wrong by the people who transcribed the different books of the bible.
Another point to look at is are we pets or an experiment? When you set up a cage for a pet you put everything together and you keep it that way, you keep feeding it, and you keep the cage clean. In an experiment you set the initial state and then, for the most part, you leave it to whatever it'll do. To me, the latter seems to be the case...
"The fricking CIA say no WMDs. End of story"
"End of story" only if the story ends 2 years ago. The more more recent DoD report takes into account all of the findings.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I find it incredibly nonsensical that so many people have trouble accepting the validity of the scientific method, and yet they make an everyday use of a vast amount of items whose existence would never have been possible without the advancement of Science.
I hereby propose we outlaw the use of TVs, computers, portable music players and cars, as well as access to healthcare professionals and services, to people who refuse to give credit to Science. I guess we'd end up living in a much more evolved (ha, pun) society than the present state of affairs. What d'ya all think?
(And by the way, yes, I'm just being ironic...)
Score: i, Imaginary
Is it dumb because it doesn't make sense? Or maybe because you can't grasp the concept? Or perhaps it's just that you have to put other people's beliefs in order to validate your own?
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic" - Arthur Clark
Scientists create worlds in petri dishes all the time. Were the bacteria to evolve to the point of sentience, they would likely regard the work of that scientist as the work of god. Who's to say that Earth isn't a massive petri dish for some race of beings who evolved billions of years ago? If you say that's impossible, I'd say you're as much a zealot as any religious fanatic.
No, say humans :P
Well, humans do evolve... but in case of the citizens of the United States it seems that they are the only humans who de-evolve.
I'm not talking "Sabertooth tigers changed into the tigers we have today". That's the same species, with some mods over the years.
Wow, I guess you really didn't pay attention in biology class, Sabertooth tigers weren't tigers at all. You might want to read the article on sabertoothed cats here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saber-toothed_cat/ Even the animals called sabertoothed cats weren't related to each other, in fact by accident you picked one of the best examples of convergent evolution.
As for new species just look at Darwin's original work. He did quite a good job of documenting the new species on the Galapagos, both their differences from animals on the mainland and from island to island.
I'd bet that the majority of people in the US believe in what they do because of ignorance and fear or changing. I am referring to creationists and evolutionists.
Many who believe in creation do so not because they see the logic in attributing the order in nature to a designer (just as we would in any other circumstance) but because it's what their parents|churche$ taught them.
Many people who accept evolution do so not because they see evidence thereof, but rather because it is taught as the "scientific" truth. This in spite of the very good points you make, of course.
I will stick my Karma out there and agree with you. I'd add to your list a third point: the fact that nature's laws that scientists spend lifetimes unraveling show tremendous order. This implies a designer. It's not that things are too complex to understand therefore they must be miraculous. It's that in any other context when you see order and structure you credit that to a designer. Trouble is that so many in the scientific community have a religious (yes, I said it) objection to the notion of a creator. Yet, neither evolution nor creation is testable, so in that respect both are a matter of faith.
Of course, it is with good reason that many people reject the position of the churches. They persecuted Galilleo for being right but against their obviously wrong scriptural interpretations. Belief in a creator (or the genesis account, for that matter, if correctly read) does not fly in the face of scientific fact. It only flies in the face of conclusions drawn by those in the scientific community who prefer the philosophical implications of a purely naturalistic origin of life rather than accept belief in a creator.
--
WAIT! Are you modding me down simply because you disagree with me?
blah blah blah
I found my way to the Slashdot main page and saw the title Did Humans Evolve? No, Says Americans, with 36 comments. Ten minutes later, I hit the 'refresh' button, and there were 368 comments. I betcha I wait another ten minutes, and it's gonna be up to 500 comments.
Haven't we covered this ground a million times before? Why does this subject still generate such a spontaneous flurry of heated opinion, basically posting the exact same arguments as in countless previous occasions?
Post about evolution on Slashdot, add water and stir, voilá, an instant war zone. Everybody's talking at the same time!
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
I'm rather surprised an american (you are from the USA I presume) dares so openly to say what you just said. It could have come from me - but then, I'm european ;-)
Nice to see someone from over there saying the same things, and reaching the same conclusion: it's actually a sign not everybody is lame-assed over the big dipper. (Not that I had to be convinced of individual USA greateness; Carl Sagan always had my respect).
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
You can hear a reference to this in this speech by evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker. He talks about Chomsky's influence on him starting around 1H 10 min into the talk. He refers to evolution around 1:19.
Kind of odd that you're arguing this after reading something by a man whose own theories run counter to general evolutionary theory. :)
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
if there wasn't some unsubstantiated book that contradicted the concept of evolution, you'd believe it in a second, just as you believe the earth revolves around the sun.
Oh ye of little faith:
He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.
- Psalm 104:5
The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
- Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30
(There are other passages, but these are the most obvious.)
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
fairly firmly established scientific truth
Since when did that happen? I thought it was still a theory. Maybe that's what the "fairly firmly" portion is about?
Before it becomes "truth" I'm quite certain it would have to change from "theory" to "law". I think the religion that people have made out of evolution is becoming worse than the relgion(s) the church has made.
Real scientists stay objective!
I mean come on, you have an entire continent of evangelical religious kooks just sitting there, ripe for the plucking. Start your own religious splinter group! You too can have up to thirty wives, or more! And they can be any age you like! God told you it was a good idea, and who are we to argue with the main man? And don't forget people, put your hands in your pockets because Gawwwwd needs his word spread to the heathens, unbelievers, scientists, and ALL WHO OPPOSE YOUR HOLY COMMANDS! :D And that costs money, as does an abode fitting of his mouthpiece, that 40 room mansion and ferrari aren't cheap you know. Yes, many will be the sacrifices you will have to make as his most faithful servant on earth, but the Betty Ford clinic is there to make you better as you try to get closer to Gawwwd... And the best part is...
Its all tax free! How sweet is that?
God bless you all, and Gawwwwd bless America!1!
I honestly don't know why there are any atheists left at all... you should be living like a king on stupid tax. Its like winning the lottery, except it just keeps getting better daily!
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
No, evolution is not "just" a theory; it's a very well founded model that is based on many evidences both theoretical and empirical. It is just that the nature of evolution is so very difference than of e.g. traditional physic where you can prove the theories by the means of experiments, which results are predicted by the model of the theory. Evolution research mostly involves looking for traces of processes spanning millions of year (which in itself makes it almost impossible for humans to comprehend due inability in perceive time periods of a larger scale than a human life time) at a global scale under conditions that we know little about. Although, the mechanism of evolution is fare from fully understood, there is no sound scientific evidence against the core principles evolution and frankly I have often found it amusing that people can reject evolution as "not proved" while proposing something so un-founded and non-scientific as religion as an alternative. The evolutionary model may still lack much to desire but in there has never been presented just one single evidence of the existence of a supreme being so who should do the proving here?
Reviewing a moron's arguments for going to war, I do see chemical weapons but I sure don't see anything about getting tired of bombing them. I do see an argument that inspections failed, but it sure does seem that in retrospect that was wrong.
and supporting an embargo that was internationally unpopular.
So... how's that occupation working out for you, as far as international popularity is going? Any comment on the mortality rate increases as compared to the sanction period?
Evolution selects for traits that are sufficient for the current environment, and does not necisarrily result in "improvement" in general. In CmdrTaco's case, he has become perfectly adapted for the situation of holding a job where "pants are optional".
Remember that from the evolutionary point of view, humans aren't "better" than apes, any more than apes are "better" than fish or fish are "better" than amoebas. Each one fits into a niche without driving out the older species. It's only our bias that puts us on the top of an evolutionary ladder.
.And we continue to do so. Our evolutionary advantage is our brain which allows our to create effective tools and maintain sophisticated society . this advantages turned out to be a revolutionary .We are now indeed the king of all species and the most successful product of evolution on earth so far.
From evolutionary point of view we ARE better than apes. Because we are much more successful in taking evolutionary niches. Heck we are better than anything evolution created so far because we expanded so successfully ( driving to extinction hundreds of thousands of other species on the way)
Many green hippies would not agree (as they believe destruction of other species and environment is not a sign of progress) - yet they fail to understand that the ability to change environment is higher evolutionary step than a mere ability to adapt to it.
I feel the OP gives an unfair attribution to US politics by describing science there as politicised.
I am from a Scandinavian country, and research and public information here is extremely politicised. There is research that will get you permanently barred from the public good company, and several professors in humanist subjects have backgrounds as leading figures of political parties.
The difference is simply down to what is acceptable and not. In my country, evolution is politically right to support (and good is that). What is however extremely unpolitically right to support is:
- research that could possibly justify or explore genetic differences between people from different parts of the world
- research that could possibly justify or explore genetic limitations in women
- research that forecast demographic change
- research that attempt to measure the economic or cultural impact of migration
- research that is critical to migration in any way (it was affirmed at one point by a leading government figure, literally, "if the debate could possibly say that migration is not good, then we are not going to have a debate")
- research that in any way could indicate any form of separation of people, for any reason what so ever (including separating prisoners from the population, and gifted students from nongifted, literally any form of separation) could have benefits
If you state anything about the above subjects, wave goodbye to all future government funding, and enjoy being referred to as a basket case in the media for the rest of your life. That is why I cannot stomach seeing only the US derided as 'politicised' when my own country is similarly psychopatic.
If Daleks evolved from humans, why are there still humans? EX-TER-MI-NATE!
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Just because some people (looking at you ID/Creationist political movement) have some bizarro ideas doesn't make the idea of creation implausible. That's no more valid than a creationist using one instance of a paleontologist falsifying fossil evidence as a means to totally debunk evolution. What you are doing is mudslinging instead of having an intelligent debate, AC. Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
blah blah blah
If someone ported the Sims2 to the Macintosh, how can it still run on Windows?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
That's what Americans are doing.
Slashdot's way of getting rid of excess mod points..
It's not really survival of the fittest. In fact, that which survives, survives. And when the environment changes, it stops surviving.
I've thought for some time that "survival of the fittest" was misleading, because it implies a strict total ordering, and the idea of the superiority of one organism over another. I prefer "survival of the sufficiently fit", because it emphasizes the thing which you are saying: That which survives, survives, and if it does then it was "good enough".
The enemies of Democracy are
And don't even get me started on Cybermen. THEY evolved from humans (though there seems to be some confusion as to exactly which twin-planet-of-Earth they were actually from.) AND THEY ARE BET-TER ON-LY AT DY-ING!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Reminds me of my freshman year on college. I went to a Christian college (soccer scholarship) and got in a huge debate with half of my class over the merits of Evolution vs Creationism. Until that point in time, I never knew that there existed people who didn't believe in the theory of evolution not to mention so damn many of them. I posed two questions for them, which I still ask: 1) How can anyone totally dismiss Evolution with the amount of supporting evidence? Not saying it is the answer to our ancestry, but it's the most probable answer that we have right now. 2) How can anyone not think that the story of Genesis might not be merely metaphorical? No one could read or write before Genesis was written and most historical information was passed through the generations as stories(Iliad). Why then is Genesis taken so literally?
What percentage of each country thinks that 9/11 (or 11/9) was perpetrated by the US government? There are kooks in all countries.
The problem is not believing in evolution or not. The underlaying problem is christianity. I must be obvious to any rational beeing that the whole basis for christianity or any other semitic religion (Judaism and Islam) is ridicolous.
How can it be expected that any person fed this kind of religous dogma has any ability to distinguish sound scientific truth from religous fantasy?
Kids are smart and rational until they are told religious contradictions. When they question them the are told to meditate over it for some years until they realize that the obvious contradictions in terms are actually beautiful harmonies.
"Fix it"
Did americans evolve? No, say humans.
Will code a sig generator for food
Every so often we are treated to another shrill screed about how the troglodytes in 'Merkuh don't believe in "The One True, Irrefutable Scientific Theory du Jour" (in this case evolution). They claim Americans are weak on science because they can't "see the evidence." And yet America has lead the world in scientific discovery and invention for [b]decades[/b]. How can this be? Perhaps the ideologues who write this bushwa can't "see the evidence."
On a related note, ever notice how all the research and development facilities in the United States are in the West and the South (the land of the troglodytes), away from the vaunted Ivy-League colleges of the East coast, the land of the enlightened?
It always amuses me that creationists ask scientists for proof, when the creationist belief is based on, and defined by, a complete lack of that very thing !
If you show us yours we'll show you ours !
> Did Humans Evolve? No, Says Americans
Not to cast too much doubt on Science's hypothesis that politicization and fundamentalism are to blame, but it's obvious that incompetence in core knowledge springs from other causes, too.
"Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
Religious? Riddle me this; for any person in a set of people, what makes a person religious as opposed to superstitious? Based on my observations, the deciding factor is whether that person is of the same religion as the observer. Should I go around believing everything everyone tells me simply because they tell me to take it on faith? Should I throw people in volcanos just because I'm told that doing so will prevent the volcano from erupting? Well I say throwing pork chops in the volcano will keep it from erupting. I back this assertion up with the fact that most days when you throw a pork chop in the volcano, it will not erupt. And if it does, you probably just threw the pork chop in there wrong. What? You want to get two volcanoes, throw pork chops in one, do nothing with the other and record the frequency of eruptions in both? HERESY!
Not that religion is a bad thing, mind you. My regime would have a mandatory state-run religion involving Smurfs. All citizens would be required to attend or submit to a state sponsored "reeducation." Of course, we'd all realize that the Smurfs aren't really real and that the religious texts (Comprised of all the episodes of the Smurfs ever animated) are simply an allegory illustrating how people should strive to live their lives in order to be harmonious members of My society. First and foremost among the lessons will be the episode where Garganel was impaled on a wooden stake for his constant crimes against the Smurfs' harmonious society. What, you say there never was an episode like that? Well... not yet...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
IIRC the "stated reason" took a couple of days to express verbally, but since it can't be squeezed into a soundbite, it's not the "real" reason. Here's a nice, abbreviated laundry list.
1) Unpopular Sanctions
2) Continuing need to bomb and kill civilians to get to strategic tartgets that were enabling Iraqui attacks on UN
3) Breach of Cease fire on occassion too numerous to count.
4) Failure to comply with terms of surrender.
5) Ejection of UN Weapons inspectors verifying claims of no prohibited weapons.
6) Failure to supply proof of compliance with destruction of prohibited weapons as negotiated in surrender.
7) Mounting pressure by humanitarian groups to end sanctions which the government was compensating for by raping the economy and starving it's citizens.
8) Continuous flip-flopping of compliance in order to keep negotiations tied up rather than face war.
9) Secret importing of supplies used to boost it's conventional arsenal that could be used for non conventional weapons.
10) Rising oil prices mounting pressure on the international community to eliminate sanctions.
11) Verbalized threats against the US, Britain. and the UN by Saddam.
12) Ongoing human rights violations against the citizens of Iraq by the Iraqui government.
13) Strategically good location for other Middle Eastern affairs.
14) Long history of proven, and often successful, biological, chemical and nuclear programs.
15) Intelligence hinting that some of the above programs were likely active.
16) And all right about this time, some very nasty ICBM tech went missing from off the coast.
There are many more.
In the decade that followed Gulf War I, we bombed Iraq, on average, over 50 times per year for blatent attacks against the UN. The motivation behind taking out that government might have included the possibility of WMD, or Strategically locating bases, or high oil prices, but there were so many reasons to wipe out that country that the refutation of any single one is pointless and is only undertaken by morons who must distil everthing into soundbites, the volume of the argument being a testament to how prolific such morons are.
I really like the way that Slashdot polls usually work. The "CowboyNeal" option is great!
A significant CowboyNeal response says either that people aren't taking the question seriously, or that they don't like any of the ordinary options. It's a good indicator of the quality of the question and of the responses.
Our country in general has a lack of understanding about what science is, how the scientific method works and just what exactly a scientific theory is. As is often said in the scientistic community, "facts change more than theories." Theories are in fact just a unification of a lot of observations that is usable to make predictions that are testable, and proven. Theories aren't hypotheses, they are thoroughly tested throughout the scientific community and the old one isn't even thrown away until there's a new theory that explains more, even if its inconsistent.
Evolution has been proven in many, many ways. Just the other day I heard about scientists reversing evolution in lab rats and then re-evolving them. (Removing a gene and then watching that gene reproduce into the population). Many facets of science such as genetics are concretely tied to the study of evolution and it is not going anywhere soon. It's a "theory" sure, but the meaning of theory isn't the same in the scientific community. God farted us all out of his ass 2 seconds ago with memories and everything intact 2 seconds ago is a "theory" in layman's terms, but it certainly isn't one in science. It does nothing to explain or predict anything at all and so it's useless to the scientific community, as is "intelligent design" or its elder sheep in wolve's clothing mother named "creation science."
There's been a backward campaign from this administration to make evolution to appear as things it is not, because I honestly believe that the people who are fighting the battle have no idea what science truly is. Most people here don't, that's why we are dwindling in scientists and mathematicians. The ignorance will never change until those posing the debate no longer appeal to religion or emotions to win over the masses, and we all know when that will happen.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Has anyone disected the questions in the poll? It is so easy to twist the numbers by asking carefuly worded questions. For instance, if I were asked if I believe in evolution, I would say, "Yes". I would argue that most people would interpret my response as a vote for science and against creation. Now if the poll follows-up with, "Do you believe in God and that he is responsible for evolution?" or "Do you believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution?" you can interpret my answer in a very different way.
What the hell does science have to do with this anyways? Not really of course, but there are over a million pages of scientific evidence that the government had nothing to do with 9/11 and a third of Americans still believe that the whole thing was a conspiracy. (Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll) The point is that polls are overrated and designed to evoke emotion and shape opinion. Get the facts and decide.
"Belief in a supernatural being that created you and the rest of the world and now runs it is, without doubt, a species of mental illness."
I'd have to disagree with that. I'm not what you'd call religious, if anything, I'm further from that mind-set than ever. Ok, a big guy in a robe pulling strings is a bit far fetched.
There are many things we don't understand, there very well could be some larger "forces" at play, and I don't mean in the literal sense, like God and Satan at some big game of Chess.
But to rule everything out, to think of universe and existence itself in terms limited by our small view of it is probably just as "ill" as taking a book as gospel.
Science is just a skeptic's religion. And for the most part, I'm a disciple.
-William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
Though at the moment it is true that the people are played, they do have power. But they don't exert it because they don't realize they are being played. The reason thing like this are depressing is that it shows that "the people" aren't educated, so are easily swayed by politicians and media and don't think for themselves. There is hope for the nation, if we can just remove peoples' blinders.
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
No wonder why our students fall further and further behind in math and science everyday.
Religion evolves. Nature created man so man could create gods. Without evidence, religion is just a creation of man. Man defines religion not the other way around. Priests having sex with children, time to rewrite that, time to redifine what is so society is more comfortable. Just like updating/modifing code. Hell we are modifing genes, we will create the new race and we will be considered as the old gods.
(yeah, I know this response is flamebait. I don't care. It needs saying.)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
There have been numerous fossils purported to document the evolution of ape to man, but I've yet to hear of one that wasn't disproven (although that never stopped people from referencing them).
We just don't seem to have evidence either way.
I agree: Science should stay out of belief and religion out of proof and theory. I would add, though, that a desire to prove or disprove any religion, theory, or hypothesis should stay out of scientific interpretations and conclusions.
but you'd probably still be shamed by your North American neigbours had we been included in the poll.
<chant>
Ca-Na-Da!!
Ca-Na-Da!!
</chant>
Despite how it sounds, I don't mean it racist. First of all, we didn't evolve from monkeys, apes, baboons, or anything along those lines...we evolved from a species SIMILAR to them. Which is also similar to us. So people need to stop saying that. Now that that's out of the way, I have never met a Creation-believing Christian I haven't been able to "flip" on evolution using the following logic, in a very calm manner. It works especially well if the other party is pregnant or the spouse of a pregnant woman. 0) You cannot attack the Christian's beliefs. Doing so just makes them not believe anything you say as they enter Zealot, and possibly Martyr-mode. 1) Determine the subject's race. If you want, just ask them. 2) Ask them the races of their birth parents. If they are mix-race, chances are if the first answer was "Irish-German" you'll get a response similar to "My mom is Irish, my dad is German" 3) If expecting a child, ask what race(s) their child will be. They'll probably look at you funny because you should know the answer. 4) Ask if they resemble anyone in their families, if they get any traits from another member of the family, what diseases run in the family, etc. When they answer, tell them "congratulations, you now understand the basic of genetics." This is quite possibly the toughest part of the flip, because it's not evolution that gives the Christian (well the one willing to think) reason to pause, but genetics. That genes are passed down from generation to generation, and that over time these genes mutate (which is why you asked about diseases). Simply passing your genes on is evolution on the most miniscule of scales. 5) If they're anemic, or know someone who is, this is great! Inform them of the malaryia-ridden areas of the world, and how those living in those areas evolved anemia to survive. Make sure they know that they didn't decide "crap we better become anemic or we'll all die!" but that only those in the area who weren't affected by malaryia survived, and the majority of those people were anemic, hence its existence today. That that is evolution on a tiny tiny tiny scale, but a little bit larger than simply passing your genes. Here is where we see "survival of the fittest." Make sure they know that "fittest" means "most fit to survive in the area at the time" and not "strongest"- because in this case, the inhabitants of the area got weaker to become more fit for survival. 6) Usually at this point they will realize that they agreed with evolution all along, but their church prevented them from admitting it. The thought that "God didn't make us the way we are now" is probably the largest hurdle for them to jump, but once they can see the cracks that we really aren't the same as we were when the bible was written, the fissures begin to grow. Usually they come to understand. It doesn't hurt to tell them that proof of evolution is not disproof of God. You can also inform them that nowhere in the bible does it say man and woman would always remain the same as when God made Adam and Eve. If that were the case, how come we all look so VASTLY different? Evolution shouldn't shatter their faith. I think, when properly educated on the matter while receptive to the idea, it can strengthen their faith. The real problem isn't the faith, it's the church's enforcement of it. The church, like any other institution, seeks power. And the more that is unknown, the more power they have. Faith isn't the enemy of science, but the Catholic church is damn close.
"A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
I'm sorry to say as a physicist that this is probably true, there are lots of excellent experiments confirming general relativity but thousands of experiments confirming natural selection and the evolution of species.
I would say evolution is a stronger theory than GR, and i'm pretty confident in gravity. The argument is over, to even debate the issue is like trying to talk to somebody who belives the earth is still flat, pointless.
I think that to understand this discussion we need to define some terms better.
Macro Evolution - the theory that once species changes into another. (ie fish becomes reptile, reptile bird, etc.)
Micro Evolution - the theory that members of a species show variance from one another but can still interbreed (they become micro species). (ie dog becomes wolf, fox, poodle, collie, great dane, etc.)
Natural Selection - the theory that micro species survive in the environment that they are best suited for and the stronger members of the species survive and thus influence the local (at least) genetic pool with their traits. (ie a chiwawa won't survive in Arctic but wolf will)
I don't know of any educated person, Creationist or Evolutionist, who disagrees with the theories of Micro Evolution and Natural Selection. Macro Evolution is issue. Macro is also what almost everyone things of when asked about "evolution." So it is no wonder that many believe evolution is wrong when asked a broad question like this survey did. But that doesn't mean those who disagree are dogmatically religious or scientifically ignorant. You or I can see both Micro Evolution and Natural Selection at work in the world around us. We can use the scientific method to study them. But macro evolution isn't something demonstrable via the scientific method. Sure there are pieces of evidence for it (and against it) but since we can't see it in a lab, it doesn't meet the requirements of the scientific method and thus isn't science. Because of this, it should exist in the realm of scientific philosophy. It is natural that those who presume there isn't a god (and thus that there must be a natural explanation for material world) and those who presume there is a god (and thus that there could be supernatural explanations for the material world) would look that his philosophical issue from opposite perspectives. But it doesn't mean that either side is unscientific.
Way to go, stereotyping a nation to look stupid. I think the title could've been less offensive if, perhaps, it said, "America kills Jesus!" Of course, that doesn't have much to do with the article, but you get my drift.
--Edward Dassmesser
A large portion of this country does not believe in evolution. Why? One of many factors is that these people don't understand it. Many of those in science are not concerned with communicating complex ideas to the masses. By not breaking down the theory of evolution to prove that it is one of the most beautiful and complete ideas to come out of the 19th century, scientists and science teachers (many of whom have their hands tied by administration, granted) are not helping the situation. When people are not taught well, how can they be blamed for clinging to the one explanation that is given with fervor. As much as I love science, I don't believe that we are blameless in this fight. By admitting some culpability, perhaps those in the science fields can start to move toward helping the public appreciate the reality of evolution, and in doing so, create a greater appreciation of science itself.
I call shenanigans on the Times, Science, and the pandering academics who performed this study. The graph (actual numbers have been conveniently withheld) clearly shows that an absolute majority of Americans do believe in evolution. Worse, the "best case", Iceland, has only an 85% uptake rate--it'd be one thing if it was 99% there, but a difference of less than 35% hardly strikes me as a crisis, at least not in the sense the Times clearly thinks it is. If it shows anything, it shows that people everywhere are still bound to irrational, primitive ideas. As long as even the uber-modern Scandanavians have 10% of their populations believeing in pre-rational nonsense, stop picking on America.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Many people of science have a hard time understanding why people of faith can't accept cold facts, and many people of faith aren't able to explain it. When it comes right down to it you have look at the very nature of religion to understand why there's a conflict.
Religion is a competition of story telling. Almost everything in religion is a story that someone came up to explain poorly understood phenomena. They fill in the unknown parts with a good story, and the person with the best/most interesting/most appealing story becomes the shaman, and wins the right to tell people how to live their lives. Those who are adherents to the most popular story teller get similar rights via delegation and proximity, so they have good reason to provide their story with support.
For those who are adherents to a popular story teller, science is nothing besides a competing story teller, no different than any other religion. Accepting and spreading the word of that other story teller is no better than the blasphemous suggestion that other religions have their good points, too. This results in the idea that one must dispute science as a matter of doctrine, otherwise your storyteller might lose popularity, and through that lose influence.
Kinda like what's going on now.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Just some food for thought.
Controversy sells. This is the only reason this topic keeps comming up.
Most people have made their peace between science and religion, and even the Pope agrees that the theory of evolution is sound. So where is the issue?
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
As new facts emerge, some will inevitable conflict with current the theories that explain evolution. The theory that suggests natural selection drives evolution in small, slow steps is failing out of favor. It is being replaced with one that suggests natural selection drives evolution in bigger steps spread out over time. One of the first examples was an observation of a pack of leopards who had a significant mutation in their spot patterns. The theories that explain evolution are, no pun intended, constantly evolving. That evolution occurs is hard to dispute, How evolution occurs is hard to explain.
I do believe in God. I also believe that the multiple creation accounts in Genesis are the result of the exiled Levitical priests writing down their best explain of the timeless question of where it all came from. While I give them high marks for piety, they were horribly unprepared to understand the infinite grandeur and depth of God's mysteries - not that modern man is that much better. Over the years, we've rejected all kinds of things those priests would have accepted as fact: Flat/Round Earth, Heliocentric/Geocentric, The Firmament, Spontaneous Generation and the list goes on. We humans will never completely understand how God works. But, because we'll never understand an infinite God doesn't mean we shouldn't make the attempt. I believe God created Evolution. [I so want that on a bumper sticker]
The flip side is just as important perhaps even more so. Just because we accept theories which conflict with passages of Scripture doesn't invalidate the whole of Scripture. We accept Kosher as a hygiene system. The priest didn't know about bacteria or trichinosis, but they did know that keeping Kosher kept you healthy. The Bible is above all else a splendidly moral document. It reminds us to love God and our neighbours. It also reminds us that we are all fallible. Even those who wrote down the creation stories passed down to them from their mentors. As a scientific journal, the Bible is not so good.
Too many people reject Science because it conflicts with their God.
Too many people reject God because it conflicts with their Science.
I say that anyone who rejects God doesn't understand Science and anyone who rejects Science doesn't understand God.
This is a boring sig
I'll try it a bit more formally: Let the domain be the set of all Americans. Let s(x) mean person x excels at science, let i(x) mean person x is ignorant.
Then your implication:
ThereExists_x p(x) ^ ThereExists_x i(x) -> ThereExists_x ( p(x) ^ i(x) )
is not valid.
*Or any natural language.
If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
Have you ever talked to anyone who totally and completely does not believe in evolution? Ask them to explain what they think evolution is. Many people I have talked to said that evolution was something more like an instant morph, something you might see on a Sci-Fi show. Seriously, one guy thought that the theory of evolution said that whenever a particle of radiation hit the DNA, it mutated and spread like a virus throughout the body, turning your ordinary monkey into a human. If that is all you knew about evolution, would you support it? Hell no!
Most of these people have been falsely educated. Their pastors and teachers use absurd straw man agruments like the one I said above, and they don't know any better. They are all probably having the inverse discussion as us: "Can you believe that a majority of Americans think that crazy evolution theory is plausable? Absurd!
The solution: don't form prejudices and write all these people off as wacky fundamentalists. Instead, educate them about what the theory really is (and why gravity is also "just a theory" - Christ, I hate that retort).
Yes, yes, they produced as long a list of reasons why invading Iraq was a good, necessary thing as possible.
Yet in every press statement, every address to the nation, every interview with Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and G.W.Bush, it was Terrorism and WMD front and center. Nothing was mentioned as often, nothing was harped on as much. No other issue received as much attention and as much effort to prove it true. WMD were not only why we had to invade, but why we had to invade NOW. None of those other issues justified immediate unilateral action, none of them were used as such justification.
You want to talk about sound-biting? Who was it who said "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"?
So you see, it was the administration who was harping on WMD over any other issue, of reducing a complex issue to sound bites. And I agree that they are morons.
Just because they were long-winded and thorough in their address to the U.N., which also featured WMD and false evidence of their existence in a major way, does not make all those other reasons equal. You must realize this, if you were actually awake in the run-up to war and not just researching this post-facto. The American people supported the war because we needed to take out Saddam's WMDs. The administration knew this, this is why they harped on it so much, and pretending otherwise is to be more stupid than they were. It's revisionist history, and it's disgusting.
The enemies of Democracy are
if the Bible is to be interpreted literally (according to a "plain" reading), why are there two Adam-and-Eve creation stories? Why don't Christians (in general) follow Leviticus? Why aren't women silenced in church (in accordance with a contentious letter of Paul's)?
The problem with "literal" interpretation is that everything in the Bible is interpreted, whether in translation or usage. The people who argue against evolution (and many of the advocates of conservatism in Christian churches) are arguing for a particular interpretation, by arguing that their version of the Bible is not an interpretation of the Bible, but the plain text, and hence faith derived from it is the only valid Christian faith (the "confessing church" movement, named after a more accurate movement in Nazi Germany, is an example). Fighting against evolution is an attempt to install their faith in society, to make it valid and real, as if they could force their version of God into existence.
As a separate issue, atheism doesn't really help get rid of dogmatic behavior - people believe and act in these ways either because they need to (in which case they will find something to believe in, and which enables them to behave accordingly) or because the object of their faith is real (in which case denying it would be untrue to what is) and they believe that their faith requires those actions. It's possible that the actions might be disconnected from the faith (if they are inconsistent with it), but atheism isn't the correct response to incorrect actions (because it would require ignorance of a truth). If there is a need to be dogmatic, atheism (or nonreligious beliefs) can serve just as well.
It clearly a case of a preference of devolution, I mean you have to understand were you are to understand were you are going. But there again with a totaly green outlook upon life and safe enviromental approach, one would live in cave, hunt organic naturaly growing animals only and......Caveman.
:).
Personaly if somebody wants to believe differently from me, then thats fine - I can accept that. Its when they force there beliefs upon me; Thats when I get pissed off. So in that respect, let them be. As long as they are aware of the options and were given the choice then, I have no qualms at all in what they believe. Good luck to them and respect and all that. On a positive aspect - more jobs in Science for those that want them
As long as people are given all the facts and allowed to choose, without preassure - then, I see no problem at all.
Almost makes this as newsworthy as OMG 22% of Welsh people write with there left-hand, so what - I dont, next.
I'm waiting....
Or perhaps you're confusing it with the posessive, ie. "The Americans wallet", or "The Americans Daughter".
Either way, you won't get an s on the end of BOTH words, when one is a verb.
He says, she says, they SAY, we SAY, Americans SAY !
See, we don't really have evidence that humans evolved from apes.
You need to read more. We've got plenty of evidence that Humans evolved from 'Apes' (not the ones that are currently around, but proto-ape ancestors of the great apes and ourselves. The evidence is in the molecular genetics and in the fosil record. Certainly the fosil record is incomplete (think about that stuff we 'build to last' and ask yourself if it'll be around in a million years or so), but it's still very compelling, especially when combined with the DNA evidence.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Not a flame, just a comment...
That is a blatent appeal to authority, which is not a very good rhetorical tactic. You might need a line of reasoning validating how that source is priviliged over other sources that say they found old caches of WMDs.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Why, oh why, can't we have article moderation? This one just screams -1 Flamebait!
Please ignore any obvious problems in this post.
The study looks like it says over 50% do believe that humans evolved from another species. And clearly less than 50% do not believe they evolved from a different species. If the 'for' is >50% and the 'against' is 50%, my math says Americans *DO* believe in evolution.
Now, does whoever wrote the headline believe in reading the article? I vote no.
It usually starts for children in most civilised countries at about 4 or 5 years old and continues informing the student with the best available information until they are somewhere around 21-22 years old. The students are often taught several subjects, including things like history, languages, science, mathematics, music and religious education.
Deleted
I think you're taking "fittest" in the wrong sense. What it means is not the survival of the strongest, or the most physically fit (healthy) but rather "fit" in the sense of being compatible with the environment. Thus, in evolutionary talk, the use of "evolutionary fitness"..
We now know how W got elected.
We, as a country, is as dumb as a box of rocks. Please, please, please, take away our WMDs before we hurt someone.
Funny how Islam took an end-run around that idea right from the start, and specifically made the Quran an infallible extension of God. Ever read The Satanic Verses? The parts about "the businessman" are basically a guidebook for how to establish a globe-spanning religion. I always wondered if Rushdie was inspired by the exploits of L Ron Hubbard, and based his caricature of Islam on Scientology.
Thank you.
// George Bush lied" rational for the war. WMDs were, granted, a small part of our involvment, but the causes of the war were MUCH more complex than the threat of the presence of WMD.
I'm getting sick of the "We went to war because of WMD
Saddam was not a nice person, and I for one am not shedding tears that he is gone. The domino, or stabalization motives were also present, and not altogether disagreeable (the humanitarian and stabalization motives were much higher as priorities in the minds of the powers that be, than WMDs, sadly these are too complex to be selling points for the general public).
That said, the whole thing is still a bungled mess thanks to the lack of strategy on behalf of the DoD.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
... the greater acceptance of scientific explanations of human origins among Icelanders than among Americans does not seem to hamper their simultaneous belief in the supernatural.
According to reports here, here and here, the Icelanders may just be experienced at distinguishing elves from trolls.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
There are many more.
And the big one which politicans can't say publicly is that radical fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with civilization and must be expunged just as Naziism and Stalinism were. A key goal in Iraq was to create a democracy in the heart of the Muslim world and cause a domino effect. Obviously this has not gone exactly according to plan, but the underlying idea is valid.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Evolution, at least as I was taught it in BIO 1110, doesn't have a single mechanism. Natural Selection is a significant one, but anything that causes a population to change is evolution. The two other mechanisms mentioned were genetic drift (which tends to eliminate rare genes regardless of their utility) and population bottlenecks (which vastly shrink the size of the population and genepool, and allows rare genes to become common, regardless of their utility).
Your post is like a breath of fresh air in the middle of Los Angeles county. Thank you for the distinction! (Macro vs Micro, that is)
btw, I'd only be using your offspring in experiments to further micro evolution.
Lets see did I A: suddenly appear on the whim of some magical god that has conveniently never shown his face OR B: Evolve over millions of years from other forms of life I think it's C: none of this is real and it's just a big computer simulation...
Of course *they* didn't evolved, they elected George W. Bush as President! :P
Where is that? Even here in the "godless" Silicon Valley, there are plenty of literal creationists.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
No one is pretending that the current administration didn't play up the role of WMD's. All politicians repeat their soundbites ad nauseum, as most people are morons and can't keep 2 sentances in their head at the same time. That doesn't mean the most repeated reason is the only reason, or neccissarily even the primary reason.. it's just the one that sounds the best or is the most passionate. I was very awake during the run-up to the war and was surprised even then at the whole 1984 style "these have always been the reasons we've hated Iraq" crap spewing from the people. As the war became more unpopular, the "revisionist" history became even worse, to the point that the entire nation seems to have a screw loose arguing over non-issues and historical trivia, to the point where they bring up "well you believe that WMD's exist *AND* Jehovah you stoopid christian; neener neener!" in the middle of evolution debates. And yes, I just used a semicolon, Jehovah and neener neener in the same sentance, and that amuses me, but that is beside the point.
Case in point, misleading the people, even only the stupid ones, is a matter of course, not a crime. The president does not need any approval whatsoever from the electorate to invade a country. He can say he did it for pop tarts and ice cream if he wants. This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Now, were he to lie to a grand jury about it... well, recent history shows we'd probably aquit him for that too unfortunately.
I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject, actually. (Although I do admit I'm not as inspired to read any "new proof" considering the trend the old proof follows.)
We don't have a complete fossil record. Heck, the pieces of the *incomplete* fossil record is generally explained away (the Nebraska Man, the Piltdown man, etc, etc, etc). Yes, any conclusive evidence would be lost to time, but that doesn't lend any credence to that conclusion.
The DNA evidence really doesn't prove anything at all. Yes, it's similar. Most creatures have DNA that is strikingly similar, and considering how similar humans and apes are, it would be a surprise if it were drastically different.
Poor-to-nonexistent evidence in the case of the fossil record, and poor conclusions in the case of DNA.
It's sad, but most scientists aren't. My problem isn't just with the evolution debate. It ranges over all the sciences. It's the problem of being human: People tend to believe what they want to, and invent their reasoning. I say as a person of faith: Religion bothers me, in the church or in secular fields.
There's a widespread misunderstanding of evolution, mostly on the part of creationists, but even some of those who believe in evolution make this mistake.
Understand this: evolution is not a linear process from "less-evolved" to "more-evolved."
That is, just because one species evolves from another, that does not mean the new species is in some absolute sense "better." What it means is that the new species is better suited to its current environment.
If a giant asteroid hit the earth tomorrow, or some massive radition burst hit the earth, it is possible that all human and mammalian life would be wiped out, and the earth left with little more than cockroaches and bacteria.
In that scenario, humanity would be a branch that died out because it could not evolve fast enough for its changed environment. Mass extinctions have happened a number of times before in the history of the earth, with a large percentage of species being wiped out. The trilobite has no known living descendants, for example.
Cockroaches would then evolve to be better suited to this new hellish world, though I doubt you would consider them more evolved. Their evolution would be dramatically different from how they would evolve without this cataclysmic event. In the eyes of evolution, neither evolutionary pattern is better in a general sense; each one was simply better suited for the environment in which it existed.
So as for your question about humans and apes; if the apes were better suited for a particular environment, but not for others, they might split into two groups, one in the old evolutionary niche, and the other in a different environment which triggered changes in that group that led to the evolution of humanity.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I'm getting sick of the "We went to war because of WMD // George Bush lied" rational for the war. WMDs were, granted, a small part of our involvment, but the causes of the war were MUCH more complex than the threat of the presence of WMD.
No one is going argue that WMD were the only reason that Bush wanted to invade - but it is indisputable that the threat of WMD was the way they chose to sell the war to the American public. So, really, I don't care if you're sick of it or not, there needs to be accountability for starting a war on false pretenses.
That said, the whole thing is still a bungled mess thanks to the lack of strategy on behalf of the DoD.
Where does that buck stop again?
PS - If you honestly believe that humanitarian concern for Iraqis was a high priority in Bush's mind... wow. I have no words.
By contrast, fundies never question anything. The few tests of the power of prayer and related magical phenomena have yielded negative results. Like those tests about whether praying for people undergoing surgery have higher survival rates? The only factor that mattered was whether the patient believed that they were being prayed for. Praying for someone and not telling them about it had ZERO effect. So much for prayer -- an activity for stupid people with too much free time. Tests of out-of-body experiences had similarly mundane results -- researchers consistently found that people who claimed to have floated around the room while dead hadn't actually seen anything that would have been visible in their altered perspectives. Conversely, under the rght circumstances, hallucinogenic drugs can reroduce out-of-body experiences quite reliably. Phenomenon discredited.
Basically, only stupid people doubt that evolution is a real process at this point. Only stupid people believe in the power of prayer, which has been consistently discredited. THe same goes for basically all other supernatural phenomenon. Feel free to believe in magic men in the sky who don't actually do anything though, since that's all the science leaves room for at this point. And if you doubt science, you'd better give back your computer, microwave, refridgerator, and everything else that science makes possible. What is a computer other than a monument to the might of science and the failure of lesser ways of understanding the world?
It's about time we all evolved.
It's about time we drop religion. It's obsolete. It's a remnant from another time when man looked up at the sky and didn't see planets, stars, water vaper, and atmospheric events, but instead the "hammer of Thor" or "Ra", or the "firmament of heaven."
Religion has value in society, but should be as far away from science as possible. Belief in supernatural is the quickest way to neuter the progress of mankind, and history has demonstrated this over and over, and over, and over and over.
Print this and share it among your friends (also pdf version). Stick this on your car. Let's encourage others to evolve beyond the dark ages of cowering under the rock at the angry gods that are now called "weather."
Yes, the majority of the US may not believe in evolution, but the fact that courts still strike down calls for creationism to be taught in schools is what's important. People can believe what they want, as long as our 'sciences' remain science.
We are fighting it over there so that we don't have to fight it over here.
ive heard the expression "the lord works in mysterious ways" TONS of times from religious types
its something you tell yourself when you dont understand why bad things happen.. so.. they dont understand those mysterious things but its assumed that we know EXACTLY how other mysterious things happened? how presumptuous of man to think they he understands the lord mysterious ways
whos to say evolution isnt the way lord created man?
even the vatican admits that the bible isnt a scientific document
1. Since it is genetically impossible for a dog to give birth to a cat, or a bird to lay an egg from which a frog pops out, etc etc (species reproduce "after their kind"), and since evolutionary theory dictates (as far as I understand it) that the forks/mutations in species occur over millions of years, how can they occur at all in a species that doesn't live past a few decades? A dog lives what, 10-15 years? How much genetic adaptation to it's environent can it make in 10-15 years, to a point that a passes down a "new" trait to it's progeny?
A creature does not GENETICALLY adapt to its environment. BEHAVORIALLY adapt, yes, but not genttically. Don't let the human tendancy to anthromorphicze animals fool you into thinking that most of their behaviors (especially less intelligent animals) are more than instinctual (and derivative from their genetic makeup).
Once a being is born, its genes do not change because of their actions in the environment (short of maybe getting a giant dose of radiation), but the genes they are born with will possibly make that being more likely to better survive the environment they live in for whatever reason. Those that survive better are more likely to reach maturity and be able to reproduce anad pass their genetic traits to their offspring.
Goofy Example: Baby artic seals are born with white fur to allow themselves to blend into their environment anad be less likely to be found by predators. Imagine thousands of years ago there were two types of fur baby seals could be born with, one group is born with the white fur, one group is born with dark brown fur. For a barely mobile inafnt, this coat is the equivalant of a giant "FREE EATS, MISTER POLAR BEAR!" sign.
Those seals that are easily found by predators are killed and eaten before they get the chance to pass on their genetically brown baby-fur, those that hide well because of their white coats mature to adulthood and breed, passing on the white coat to their offspring. Seals that are boorn wiith non-white fur due to an old recessive gene or a mutation are less likely to survive and pass that gene on.
The actions of the seals themselves (beyond mating) have nothing to do with changing the genetic makeup of the species.
Another good example is how humans selectively breed animals to create dominant traits, resulting in the numerous breeds of dogs that are out there. The "environment" isnt natural, but the outside influence brings that species of dog about by strengthing specific traits.
The individuals of a species that can pass on their genetics better (more often) are the more successful members of their race and they decide where that species is going.
Its pretty basic science. I think I was taught about basic genetic inheretance somewhere around 5th grade.
Counter-argument to your faith based creationism:
Science proves its theories wholly or in part by doing the experiments that prove the theory over and over again and getting the same result. Then OTHER scientists recreate the experiments and TRY to disprove the theory for completeness. Its called "The scientific method." Humans have been breeding doge for centuries into specific types; scientists breed mice for specific traits so they have a "common test subject"
As far as I can see for the creation side of the argument, that experiment has been done entirely once, and the documentation on it isnt very good beyond saying "this happened." Show the scientific community another example of "POOF! Heres a species!" and sciencec will give faith-based theories a lot more weight.
s'wut i sed.
I have faith in each step that gravity will keep working for me to allow my walk to continue. This faith has worked out admirably for me so far. Works out well for my two-year-old, too.
In science there are underlying assumptions, for instance:
- The universe can be observed reasonably accurately. Human observation of the universe will lead to practical applications.
- The universe is not absurd; that is, the rules that apply today will apply tomorrow, and will not change randomly.
- Science is worth pursuing because the results are desirable.
While these ideas are sound in most cases, they too fail sometimes. Science has arguably accomplished some very heinous things (think of the Nazi scientists killing concentration camp victims, or more mildly, genetically modified corn pollen decimating monarch butterfly populations.)Likewise, religion can be used, with caution, to great benefit. I will strongly claim that the tolerance that is advocated by most faiths is worth learning.
The enemy is unchallenged assumptions, not the philosophical frameworks built on the assumptions. Faith is a practical principle, that, like others, can be abused. We need to choose what to have faith in based on values we choose to hold as important, regardless of the pursuit.
How come I have to choose between Christians and Scientists? Computers use a binary number system. Nature is analog. Check out this American, Christian, Scientist who didn't like that choice either:
Um... Shouldn't Canada be up there somewhere? It's the only G8 country not listed. All humour aside, I consider that a rather large oversight for a "scientific" study.
And if we were just lumped in with the US, that's even more stupid. There are (metric) tonns of socio-economic differences between us.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
this, a highly opinionated and biased article about evolution being proof of the existance of God. I suppose Slashdot is good for creativity after all :)
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
"Insightful", indeed. There's very little insight to be had in your post, I'm afraid. Be careful focusing on six words and making a generalization. To ancient folks, and to some degree modern ones, which god you identify with determines which set of rules you follow.
In many cases, "religious law" seems to have been "engineered" in a way. In other words, the reason for the law was not really religious in nature, it was pragmatic.
Examples in health:
Don't eat food XYZ. Why? Because God said so. In reality, they likely noticed that people who ate XYZ wound up getting sick or dieing of food poisoning more often. In reality, it was probably due to bacteria proliferating in certain types of food more than others. For them, it was wrath of their god. The result? Dietary laws.
Circumcision has long been protested as "pointless mutilation", which it may well be. However, there's strong evidence that circumcision may save your life if you have sex with an HIV-positive person. I think the figure I heard was that you'd have 60% better chances if circumcised, due to a lower white blood cell count at the tip of your penis (white blood cells which are directly infected by HIV). Someone will correct me, I'm sure. Did ancient people have *anecdotal* evidence that suggested circumcision would prevent certain diseases? I don't know, but for such a large percentage, it seems plausible. They didn't have microscopes, but they weren't blind or stupid. They were simply misidentifying the causes of some very real observations.
Apart from health, sociology was a big target (in fact, the stated target) of religious law. How do people treat each other? What rules define the interactions of people in a society? How do we attempt to avoid a "welfare class", "bankruptcy", a certain few owning most of the property, etc? (For just one example, think "Year of Jubilee" and imagine its economic impact).
All I'm saying is that many of the religious laws were anything but. They were laws that were a response to issues of the day. Just like today, there were lots of pointless and stupid ones -- some probably downright harmful. How do you get people to obey the laws? Threaten death, jail, etc? Sure, and they did. What's a more pleasant way to do it? Tell them their god said so. That way you don't look like the bad guy for creating rules, and, what's more, people don't think they can get away with unseen crime when an omniscient god is the judge, jury, and executioner.
So this is where people argue that "that was then, and this is now". Wrong. Human nature doesn't really change much over time. People are still basically greedy, hateful, lustful, kind, loving, and generous. They always have been, and always will be. The essence of religious law is the most time-tested way of dealing with the way we've been since we've been human. Do situations change? Would Moses have envisioned the internet and motor vehicles? No, of couse not. But he would have known what people would act like on the internet, and how they would drive. See? The *things* don't change the *people*. They just change the *object* of the desire, or the *cause* of the murdurous rage.
Insisting on monotheism was, in a way, insisting that people follow a uniform code of conduct. They didn't want their carefully constructed legal system to be polluted by outside influences, which would generally prove destructive to Jewish society.
On a more theological note, you quote the "you shall have no other gods". The actual passage is "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me." (Ten Commandments)
Jewish tradition never said that there were no other "godlike" entities in the spiritual world. They just said that you shouldn't worship them in a higher precedence than the I AM. In fact, the Bible is chock full of stories about angels, demons, spirits, and precognition,
Great! Note to self - Use preview and pay attention. Check out this American, Christian, Scientist who didn't like that choice either: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/vine.htm
There's a low-intensity battle raging in schools right now, with many students actively fighting the teaching of evolution. I have a friend who is a biology teacher in public school (I don't recall if it's high-school or junior high), and he's been thinking about asking to teach a different subject because the hostility of some kids to evolution is becoming too much.
He says it's a daily occurrence now for kids in his class to wear confrontational religious t-shirts to class, pray during his lectures, close their books and turn their backs to him, ask him to go to church with them and be saved, etc. You can imagine that this is a very touchy subject for him to have to deal with.
The religious fanatic parents of these kids are turning them into mini religious militants. Hearing my friend tell it, it sounds very bad - something like a cancer that's pervading the schools, almost an insurgency. And this is not in some small rural town - he teaches in Phoenix, AZ (granted, it's a somewhat conservative place, but it's the sixth largest city in the US!).
I just get weird vibes of Madrasahs and Taliban when I hear this stuff.
"The tooth fairy is a mythical creature, like Santa Clause....and Charles Darwin."
From TFA:
"Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."
I've known many human beings. None of them, so far as I know, were an "earlier species of animal" at any point in their lives. They've been fetuses, and they've been embryos, but they've all been *human* fetuses and embryos. I know no humans who have themselves previously been dogs (Sharikov?), cats, chipmunks, or any other non-human species. Human beings, *as we know them*, developed from human beings. There hasn't been recognizable speciation within humanity in our lifetimes. A better question would be the origin of the human *species*. Strictly speaking, we need to draw a distinction between human beings as individuals (who do not, as a rule, "develop", Lamarck notwithstanding) and populations (which do change over time, even if it's purely drift). If one rejects Lamarck in favor of Darwin, should one disagree with the statement?
Did the human species develop from *several* earlier species (there's an implied plural, since there's no article), or just one? If different species, by definition, do not interbreed to yield fertile offspring, how could one species have developed from several earlier species? Or is the implication of the plural that these several species were in succession, i.e. that the human species developed from another species, which in turn developed from a third species, and so forth, as in the much-parodied illustration? If one does not believe that humans could develop from multiple species simultaneously (based on the definition of "species"), should one disagree with the statement?
Ignoring the problem that the definition of species becomes highly speculative when one only has the fossil record[1], perhaps the US would have fared better if this statement had been phrased more carefully in English. One wonders whether it was asked less clumsily in Icelandic. One of the problems with international surveys like this one is the difficulty of comparing the answers to questions asked in different languages. I think it would have been more clear in English as "Humans developed from earlier species of animals". Perhaps the bias of the authors led them to phrase the statement poorly in English?
Yeah, I know. I'm probably just making excuses.
[1] Given two somewhat similar sets of bones, how can one know for certain whether the two animals were able to interbreed, yielding fertile offspring? How much morphological difference can be attributed to individual variation, sexual dimorphism, or pathology within one species? What if the two sets of bones were temporally distinct? Do people today belong to a different species from people living three hundred years ago, given that there isn't a lot of interbreeding across that many generations? Do the people who lived three hundred years ago and six hundred years ago inherently constitute "earlier species of animals" simply by temporal separation? Once the conventional definition of species becomes impractical, the definition of distinct species becomes much more speculative.
It's easy to have faith in things we revere but don't understand.
It saddens me to see how restricted and small-minded we've become in our day in age. But it's not Creationists that I'm referring to. Nor is it the "scientific thinkers". It's all of us in the West, because we believe that these are the only two choices. We assert that you either believe that the Scientific Method is the only way to knowledge, or that you believe in religion with its dogmas and so-called "faith". Not so.
In the end, neither religion nor science has ultimately proved itself. In both cases, we take faith in the side we believe. For example, many so-called scientific thinkers I've met assert that if it's not empirical, it's unproven, and there are no exceptions. Really? Then empirically prove that this must be true: "if it's not empirical, it's unproven". You can't prove Empiricism with Empiricism. Think about it. The material world doesn't interpret for you, you do. Don't misunderstand me, I believe in Evolution, and I believe the Chrisitian position is a deluded state of denial. But I'm not ignorant of how Western thought came about. "Science" is a special case of thinking. Don't get started on objective vs. subjective, logic, etc. I've heard it all before and understand it quite well. All that is missing the point if you don't understand the roots of Western thought throughout history. Go study the roots of mathematics, philosophy, and science from India, China, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Study Pythagoras, Archimedes, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, through to Kant, Leibniz, Galileo and Newton, Popper, Kuhn, Einstein, Heidegger, Derrida, etc. etc. Once you've done that, by understanding more than just a superficial faith in a Western triumph in thinking, then you'd understand what I'm talking about.
Contrary to what was said before, you can take these positions (or more): 1. Don't know. 2. Don't know yet. 3. Can't know. (but not because of "meant to" or "meant not to" sort of thinking, because it's not possible) 4. Know.
Nothing about number 3 implies that you *must* then use faith. If you do, fine. It's a choice. Or you could choose to fall into number 1 permanently. It's up to you. But we need to stop deluding ourselves that number 3 doesn't exist. Go study hermeneutics and its relation to epistemology. Theoretical physicists can come up with a "theory of everything" 'til they're blue in the face, but the question remains, well then what is the grounding of *that* that makes it true? Is it turtles all the way down? If the laws are real, then they're *here* are they not? Can you pour me a glass of E=MC2 particles into a glass, or isn't the laws just a mental construct? Or are they in the "heavens" (a la Platonic, Christian-like thought), where they are somehow more "real" than the material world they dictate?
We can never see the world as if our head were cut off. We will always be locked in a world of interpretation and meaning. You can never understand without doing the understanding. Looking "behind" the material world has nothing to do with the world, it's about *you*. I love Slashdot, but perhaps I'm talking to the wrong crowd about this. The true spirit of science is to be open to *truth*, not to merely accept what is acceptable to scientific method and deny that there are any possible limitations of such method. Because then, you wouldn't be any different than a religious zealot of the opposing side. Think about it. Acting this way is like programming only in Javascript and saying you know all there is to know about computer science. Both sides need to remember what it is like to be open minded.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." --Aristotle
While there may be signs of God's work, and evidence of evolution, neither can be proven by direct observation, but can only be inferred indirectly and conluded by the application of faith.
I, for one, can have faith in God without feeling the need to put him on a human time scale. In that case, I can say that God created evolution as the means of creation. If God can build a universe, he's certainly not working on my scale in physics. Why should he be bound by my perception of time?
And, in a leap of faith, it seems a bit of hubris to believe that man is the top of the food chain, especially in the setting of today's tribalism.
I expected the "False" response percentage to be must higher.
You must have been playing the deaf and blind monkeys simultaneously... When I was in Turkey, attacks against the theory of evolution was almost a daily news item. Probably depends on which newspapers you read.
Evolution makes no claims as to the origin of life. It merly theorises what has happened to that life once it did start.
I recall a collegue once speculating: If life were created, are introns the comments in the code? And if so, do they qualify as "holy writ"?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
> Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish respondents) to assert that 'humans developed ... from earlier species of animals.' Iceland, meanwhile, has an 85% acceptance rating for evolution.
Similar numbers for belief in fairies. 85% in Iceland, with Americans near the bottom.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
It seems to me that the saying, "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.", could now possibly read, "There are lies, damn lies, and then there is statistics and polling." Whenever I read information gathered from polls I am highly skeptical. I dont know of anyone personally that has ever been contacted by these polling agencies. Also it appears polls can be manipulated just as easily as statistics can. Depends on where and how you collect the data. I am more inclined to believe that more people in the US have Caller ID and will not answered unsolicited calls by people they dont know. I also believe that they use lists of people that they know will answer their polls. There should probably be some studies on what constitutes your average polling person and how they fare next to an average US citizen. So I do not generally think the US is full of a bunch of fundamentalist wackos... What is more likely is that the vast majority of the US is apathetic to many of these lightning rod issues. They just dont care because they dont see how their opinion will affect any change. Its the same reason many people in the US do not vote. I dont believe in religion. I could certainly care less about God also. The reason evolution is so scary to people is that it isnt the "feel-good" answer that religion is. Religion fills in the embarrassingly large holes in what we dont know about things. People being afraid to admit they are alone in their decision making is what makes religion so attractive. Why worry about things you dont know when religion has the simple answers that you can even relate to children.
b) Notice that the person who made religion the issue was the guy who did the shooting. HE was the one who declared himself to be an American Muslim who was angry at Israel before shooting a bunch of Jews. Many news outlets reported the facts of the story, which included this statement. The statement strongly implies, if not outright announces, that the attack was religiously motivated. CNN, by not reporting this part of the story, tried to remove religion as an issue in a tragic episode where it clearly *was* the issue. That's just as bad as making it the issue when it's not.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
... in case they wish to prevail well. I'm from Sweden, among the top 5 "evolution believers" or something in that list, and the church has become radically less popular in recent years, and they're losing ground to the point of a majority of people pointing fingers at the church if they'd think of condemning e.g homosexuality. They're under pressure, and most are probably only members of the church to celebrate traditions, not out of belief. As for me, I think it's about time people start questioning the beliefs of Middle Eastern prophets around 2,000 years ago. Maybe they weren't right and trying to gain power and influence by attempting to convince people they were spoken to by God, and spreading their scriptures to broaden their reigns. Food for thought. They were still human, back then, and employed human psychology.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Aah, yes. This lovely argument, yet again:
Many places in the bible specifically say that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death in the Old Testament. To change God's laws and replace them with your own interpretations is something that can be a damnable heresy.
The bible also says that eating shrimp is a sin punishable by death. You eat shrimp? You should die, by your own arguments! You choose to interpret it in some other way than literally? That's a "damnable heresy", by your own words! So tell me: do you eat shrimp or other shellfish? If so, you're a hypocrite who selectively ignores what you find to be inconvenient rather than face up to the fact that the bible is a very long set of parables, and nothing more.
That doesn't mean the most repeated reason is the only reason, or neccissarily even the primary reason.. it's just the one that sounds the best or is the most passionate.
Okay, well I was specifically talking about the reasons used to justify the war to the American people, not his real intentions stated or unstated. There are still people who believe those reasons, and that's what I was originally refuting. If that's the source of a misunderstanding, then hopefully it is now resolved. As far as those real reasons are concerned, I think they range between craptastic and nefarious.
As the war became more unpopular, the "revisionist" history became even worse, to the point that the entire nation seems to have a screw loose arguing over non-issues and historical trivia, to the point where they bring up "well you believe that WMD's exist *AND* Jehovah you stoopid christian; neener neener!" in the middle of evolution debates.
Well, yeah, arguing with people who still think Saddam was behind 9/11 and that we found nukes in Iraq tends to make people crazy.
This is a Republic, not a Democracy.
Which is like saying "This is a square, not a quadrilateral".
Yet you're right that misleading the people isn't a crime, and he doesn't need the support of the people to invade. In a literal sense. However we are a Democracy, and while George W. isn't going to be up for re-election, those who supported him in Congress and went along with his lies are and they are poignantly aware that this is a democracy. They do need the support of the people to maintain their power that allowed them to approve the war. This is why, ultimately, the WMD "issue" matters -- because without that issue, the people would not have supported the war, Congress fearing re-election would not have supported the President, and the President would not have started the war. Yeah, he could have, but that doesn't make it a pratical reality.
Of course now their method of maintaining their seat is to continue the big lie -- invading was necessary for [reason du jour] and has always been the reason, the war is going great, we can't give up or the terrorists win! Basically hoping that the same Orwellian nonsense that got them to where they are will keep them there.
The enemies of Democracy are
This survey would have yielded almost exactly the same results if taken during the Clinton years, which seems to be the preferred Slashdot benchmark for awesomeness.
I bet the acceptace of evolution WAS a little bit higher during the Clinton years, and a little bit higher still during Bush I, and a little bit higher still during Reagan, and a little bit higher still during Carter. The US has been slowly turning away from science and toward religious fundamentalism since the Moral Majority and Christian evangelicals began their great push-back from the cultural changes of the 1960's and 70's. I agree that Bush II is not the primary cause, but he's definitely another agent of this movement.
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
I have a hard time thinking humans came from apes. I think we started as a primative human, but, not that far.
Ah... but you're thinking too small. The theory of evolution does not state that man evolved from apes, but that man evolved from the earliest forms of life. At one point in man's evolution, he was a one-celled organism. Later on, some form of reptile. Eventually, in the recent past, Man's ancestors were chimp-like creatures. Some people would still classify humans as belonging to the classification of "great apes", meaning we're still apes.
So, no, we were never gorillas or chimps, if that's what you mean by "ape".
... it sucks for people who live in an age defined by the scientific enterprise to be lorded over militarily and economically by a scientifically stunted nation.
Actually, I find that encouraging.
It shows that a country can tolerate diversity of religious belief among its citizens, rather than imposing some standard, and still achive success in military, political, economic, and culture-propagating endeavors.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
For the vast majority of people who do not know, and by "vast" I mean 99.9% of the population. Scientists included:
www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/HowScien.pdf
Please read.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
Lets say God exists.
Lets say God creates a program, in other words, our universe.
Lets say that the program has rules which handle changes in the fundimental makeup of organisms.
Lets say these changes, spread amongst a population, is what we like to call an evolution of the population, otherwise, its a mutation. (please correct me if i'm wrong)
What I'm trying to understand is why its so hard to grasp that maybe God ran the program and let it go! Sure He may be working hard to 'roll the dice', but the fact is that everything is ruled by the laws of physics which was ALSO created by God, and interestingly enough, represented by equations. God created everything, right? We created 'science' in an attempt to explain everything. I think its safe to conclude that science describes the program, which God created separate from Himself. The Bible describes God. I also think its possible to admit that one can have faith in the existance of God and also know why things happen.
It does not matter how strongly you believe that this is nonsense. It does not matter how strongly you use evolution to prove that this cannot be true and will not happen. You, the one reading this, will stand before that throne and will be judged.
With all due respect, fuck you, and your delusion.
It's your "holy book", not mine.
It's your "ten commandments", not mine.
It's your Jeebus Christ, not mine.
It's your hell, so YOU GO AHEAD AND BURN IN IT! You won't see me there, because I don't believe in that fairy tale crap. No amount of self-righteous fear-mongering verbal or written regurgitation on your part will change my reality, so keep your delusions to yourself... UNDERSTAND?
I don't give a crap if you believe in jesus, allah, yaweh, ra, elvis, bigfoot or joseph smith. Believe whatever you want to believe. But you cross the line when you invade my space with your irrational, self-righteous, arrogant GIBBERISH. If heaven is such a great reward, keep it for yourself. Some of us don't give a flying fuck about your fantasy shit.
And let's establish something here.... What the fuck did your "jesus" do for you? Really? What goddam "sacrifice" does a diety make who "dies" and then comes back to life? If it was really a sacrifice, he'd stay dead. This is like me clipping my fingernails to forgive you idiots of your sins... and the whole notion of someone inheiriting the sins of their ancestors is another backwards belief. There's nothing consistent, nor moral about the goofy ass dogma you preach, so keep it to yourself so I and others don't have to call you out for being a babbling idiot.
If you disagree, then we'll wait and let "gawd" sort it out, ok? But stop your boneheaded preaching.
Did I ever say that they did? The OP (and others I've run into) used the fact that X% of Americans believe we found WMDs as evidence of American stupidity. All I'm saying is that, technically, we DID find WMDs, so it's not a stupid thing to say in a poll. Just because you belive we found them doesn't mean you think we found enough to justify war, or that you think we found enough to be a danger, or anything else. Just that, technically, we did find them, so if that's as far as the poll goes, it doesn't tell you anything about the stupidity of respondents or their political leanings or feelings about the war.
That's why the term *WMD* was created by the marketing geniuses of Gulf War 2, so that they could put a 25-year old artillery shell filled with mustard gas in the same threat categorie as a nuke. It allowed them to scare the common folk with visions of mushroom clouds, and then claim "see, we found WMDs !" when they dig up an old relic from the 1980's Iran vs. Iraq war. You can play semantical games all you want, but I know a great shining lie when I see one.
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
I don't believe in continental drift because it still takes the same amount of time to drive from LA to Vegas.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/08/ricky-g ervais-live-book-of-genesis.html
:-)
Brilliant! Truly weeds them out, doesn't it?
If fundamentalist Islam is the problem, why would you invade one of the most secular states in the region? That'd be like fighing Stalinism by invading Australia or fighting Nazism by invading pre-war France.
The only invasion that actually made any sense at all was the invasion of Afghanistan. Actual threat to the U.S.? Check. Actual example of destructive fundamentalist government? Check. Actual chance of going well and being successfull? Check.
Too bad Afghanistan is being neglected because of the cluster-fuck that is Iraq. Any truly valid reason one can give for invading Iraq either applies tenfold to Afghanistan or only makes any sense after fininshing in Afghanistan.
The enemies of Democracy are
Religion isn't even a theory. It's an unsupported hypothesis. Not unlike astrology, the aether, or trickle-down economics.
Oh, please. Poke around the archives at talkorigins.org and learn a bit about the actual evidence.
but it doesn't.
:) ) of the human eye for e.g is the accumulation of millions of years of arbitrary events.
Evolution doesn't really focus on the how, because the focus from Darwinian times till now has been on the genetics and natural selection between different "versions" of species (this is common sense and unarguable, the fittest will survive) as opposed to how the chemical->biological->physical reactions lead to the difference in the first place.
Evolution is really about mutation, that is where the real fun happens. And mutation is largely random, based on the physical state of the universe at any given time. The number of factors involved render this random event of almost infinite possibility(the chances of getting the same results again are less than can be represented in today's computing), which is why people have trouble believing that the amazing design(sorry, no other word
Americans are usually wrong, but they may have something here. As others have said, only absolute faith in God alone can allow someone to accept "creationism", but what people are missing here is that for some monotheist faiths a combination of thought and emotion is required by the religious texts themselves. The muslims' Quraan for e.g regularly asks the reader to reflect on the magnificence of nature/universe to strengthen their faith, refute doubt. And this verse in particular is very.. unsettling:
"We will show them our signs in the [great]distances[ or horizons] and in themselves until it becomes perspicuous to them that is the Truth; does it not suffice for your Lord that He bears witness to all events?
Lo! they are in a doubt of the meeting of their Lord
Lo! He encompasses all things"
Why Do You Believe in God?
Have you ever asked yourself
I mean seriously asked yourself?
Pierre Charron once noted that we are baptised or circumcised a Christian or a Jew, long before we are even aware we are a human.
Is it any wonder then that, through early indoctrination while the critical mind is still developing, we almost without exception go on to inherit the precise religion of our parents or surrounding culture?
No, of course not - its only natural. But that doesnt say much for the actual truth of that particular religion, does it?
Don't be afraid to question:
The Truth is never embarrassed by honest enquiry
150 years ago: the abolition of slavery
100 years ago: the emancipation of women
50 years ago: inter-racial marriage
Today: same-sex relationships
Why is it that the church always has to be dragged kicking and screaming (by secular outrage) towards the tolerance and compassion that, ironically, it claims to hold a monopoly on?
Morality
Contrary to what your church may have told you, atheists do not automatically turn to hedonism and anarchy. In fact, those who suggest that a man must be ethically restrained by a religion reveal, quite frankly, just how deep-seated their own morals are.
It is an easy target for the church to blame society's ills on man's inevitable shelving of the god myth. But the fact remains that there is a fraction of the immorality now than there was when the church had complete, unchallenged influence over every aspect of society.
This was a time of Crusades, Inquisitions, and witch- and heretic burnings.
It was a period known as the Dark Ages, and that they truly were both morally and intellectually.
The Ten Commandments are woefully inadequate as a moral guide:
The first four are blatant religious propaganda - basically a plug for the Hebrew God.
The remaining six are dangerously held up as exhaustive and inspired by those who apparently haven't read them. For example, one wonders how 'lying' and 'envy' make the big list of don'ts, but not rape, torture, child abuse, racism, slavery. And surely nobody still seriously believes that black and white moral guidelines are of much use in a greyscale world. &Thou shalt not kill& - but what about in genuine self-defense? &Thou shalt not bear false witness & - but what about lying to the Nazi officer who asks if you are hiding Jews? True morality requires judging each case on its own merits, not just overlaying the same clumsy morality stencil on everything.
Prayer
To the critical mind, it seems that the proportion of prayers that are specifically answered do not deviate too far from what the simple law of averages would suggest.
Having never prayed in my life, I can certainly attest to having a better than fair share of good fortune.
Regardless, what never fails to surprise me is the egotism and arrogance of the Christian who, by praying for divine favour or intervention, actually calls doubt on the very wisdom of their god!
Who told you that you were a sinner?
Your church? But wait, don't fret! There's a magic cure, and your church just happens to have it! (Of course some might suggest that your church has merely cut you in order to sell you a band-aid.....)
Did Adam and Eve sin?
They disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Right and Wrong). So, yes..... Right?
Just one problem. How could Adam and Eve have been expected to comprehend the implications of their actions if, prior to their indiscretion, they had no concept of wrong, evil, punishment, suffering, pain, and death?
Even if God had been successful in adequately explaining all of these concepts and the distinction between right and wrong to them beforehand, this means that he would have had to have given them knowledge of good and evil anyway, which turns this entire story into one big ridiculous farce.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not
If you believe in evolution... by all means continue your SCIENTIFIC studies into the matter. But don't call mere hypothesis DOGMA... that's just ridiculous. I think evolutionists are becoming more cult-like everyday. What an embarrassment to the scientific community. You know what they say about those who ASSUME....
I'm amused by the ironic lack of apostrophes in your otherwise informative post.
Not quite. There is no such point. Wherever you are all galaxies are diverging from you in the same way, in whatever direction you look. This would not be the case if they diverged from one point in an absolute space.
How do we know, since we only observe the universe from our galaxy? Well, among other things, we would have to conclude from the observations that we are sitting at the centre of the universe if we dropped this symmetry assumption. A notion that was proven wrong on different scales several times.
This might be little bit hard to imagine. But in the framework of General Relativity it makes perfect sense.
617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
If we came from monkeys then please explain this. Oh wait ...
If it can't outrace the tortoise, it's doomed, and the tortoise will use quantum physics to cheat.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I used to be an American. But then they changed what being an American was. Now what I am isn't American, and what is American is weird and scary to me.
It has already happened to you.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
... if we're going to be a democracy, people need to have a basic understanding that the world is not about pixie dust and fairy tales.
Not at all. And your belief to the contrary shows a profound (though common) misunderstanding of democratic forms of government (such as the constitutional republic).
The purpose of such forms is not to make wise or informed decisions.
The purpose is to make decisions that predict the outcome of a civil war, in a way that is sufficiently believable to the losers that they will not attmpte to reverse the decision by violence.
So it doesn't matter if the voters believe life came about by evolution from accidentally produced self-replicating molecules with mild enzymatic activity, divine creation, engineering by a team of space aliens, or a sprinkling of pixie dust.
What matters is whether there are people who are willing to FIGHT about it, and how many of them are on each side.
If an election counts them correctly, lets the big group get enough of its way to satisfy its members, convinces their active opposion to knuckle under, and thus keeps the groups from actually holding a war that would achieve the same result with more bloodletting, "democracy" did its job.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
2. Evolution can and does describe the existence of complex structures, and there's no inherent law that states natural selection must dispose of genes, when it's just as easy to carry that information as recessive bits of junk code, which we do see in human beings and other species.
What would you suggest, considering your own research and analyzation, as the fundamental guidance for life on earth, since you find evolution so problematic? I have a feeling the first part of your last sentence explains more about why Americans feel the way they do than the second.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
Michigan State University Professors that believe in Canada: 0%
That is, assertions that are valid outside an axiomatic system.
Truths inside axiomatic systems are useful but only in the scope of the system.
We only have little 't' truth -- assertions backed by theories and empirical evidence.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
your faith is weak if it cannot take on evolution without crumbling.
Maybe people should become deists if they want to believe in a god without having obvious conflicts with science. Or just live with the (very few) conflicts (by ignoring them)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't imagine you do much work with neuroscience, or in simulation/agent based systems. These fields will encroach upon your beliefs concerning information theory, conciousness, and thus: the soul.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
most american and turkish people have not really evolved (as the rest of us,) have they?
We must believe people when they openly admit it.
Now let's say this fictional universe is really our universe and we are the sentient beings. If all the above were true (let's not get philosophical about what truth is), what would it take for science to be able to discern that? Would it be able to?
What would life forms and the fossil record have to look like if it were true that an intelligent designer had made discrete life forms? I am guessing most scientists would say it would look a lot different than the life we see on planet Earth, since most scientists believe that the myriad of life forms on THIS planet evolved from a far simpler life form. So tell me, scientists, what would created life look like? Would the designer have to make every life form completely different? No two creatures would have two eyes. Okay, three eyes for this one, seven for that one, 42 for that one. No, that's too many creatures that have "eyes"--seeing is overrated. No, some would have to have sonar--oh, wait that's already been done. Okay, okay, some would have cells and others would be a cell--no, wait, that's already be done. Well, maybe some should have DNA and others would have BNA and others would have LGSPD and others would have PDTSL (I made those acronyms up, in case you tried to Google them). And some would be built with proteins made from amino acids others would be made from some other acids. Some would not be carbon based, they would be silicon based and Polonium based and Ununquadium based. Hah! Now there would be proof that life was designed by some intelligent, sentient, being with a funky sense of humor. Scientists would have to believe it then, or would they...
The only true division in mankind is:
Those who think with their head vs those who know with their heart.
wikiality.com
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson, though it is used as a handy reference to the First Amendment. Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin also used the phrase.
:) Good luck waking up from it, but once you do you'll find the whole of existence will be more beautiful and less terrifying.
It's interesting to note that the phrase you quoted "Laws of Nature" is actually capitalized in the Declaration of Independence.
The reference to "Laws of Nature" is an even more direct reference to Deism, because the deistic belief was that some supreme being created the universe and the laws of nature and the rest of what progressed from that point on followed the laws of nature. Most Deists did not believe in divine intervention or supernatural occurrences, and they definitely did not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Mention of the Laws of Nature would have been an extremely obvious reference to Deism in 1776. It was progressive at the time, and depressingly, is once again.
I seems that you were taught the same crap I was growing up.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
You're a retard. Haha! I'm laughing at you, ignoramus!
Others here might try to change your mind, but not me. I'd rather jack off in your eye, you stupid git!
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
In short, statements as these two are utterly useless and damaging to both science and religion.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Look, let's just have a debate. A national debate on TV. The right people could put it together. Let's present the evidence from the most die-hard evolutionists and the most experienced creationist debaters. But of course the evolutionist leaders will not have it. It would scare them half to death. Why? The evidence. No? Then let the debate begin! That's all that needs to be said, really.
Pakistan would probably resent your remark. That country doesn't get nearly enough credit when it comes to the mechanics of their justice system or the education of its populace. I can't speak to Burma, but the same might hold true there.
I like how everyone reads the first sentence of my post and then submits a scathing, condescending response. FYI, it keeps going after the first sentence. It's more like a paragraph.
Also, it's just sad that you get modded down for asking everyone to respect other people's beliefs because they are different. It almost seems like... intolerant zealotry. But of course, that would never be true of such an enlightened group as this.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
From evolutionary point of view we ARE better than apes. Because we are much more successful in taking evolutionary niches. Heck we are better than anything evolution created so far because we expanded so successfully ( driving to extinction hundreds of thousands of other species on the way) .And we continue to do so. Our evolutionary advantage is our brain which allows our to create effective tools and maintain sophisticated society . this advantages turned out to be a revolutionary .We are now indeed the king of all species and the most successful product of evolution on earth so far.
I would not be so fast to declare humans the fittest species for survival. Look at all the insects. I dont have the numbers but i think insects account for many times the mass of all humans on earth. We try to kill them and after a few generations they are resistant to almost anything. Who is successful in surviving?
ID is a bunch of nonsense, and the fact that so many people seem to want/need to believe it is scientific is depressing.
That said, there is a fringe of the scientific community that bears some of the blame for making this issue into the hot-potato that it is in my opinion. It is unfortunate, but there have always (well, at least since the 18th century if not sooner) been those on the fringe in science who embrace science as the antithesis of religion and go beyond what can be scientifically proven themselves in their efforts to vilify the religious sentiments of their peers. It's not surprising that some with strong religious sentiments would be alienated by such behavior, and might turn against scientific reasoning if they feel this abuse is representative of the scientific community as a whole.
This is no defense of ID. I've read the works of the so-called scientists who advocate for ID, because I was curious to how it had elevated its way to a puplic education issue in the US. They are either woefully naive with vague non-scientific meanderings, or shamefully deceptive in their sophistic abuse of logic.
I'm not going to name any names. Most of the people I have in mind are still alive. This isn't a thesis anyway, but just an opinion.
I'm just saying that the absurdity of this apparent controversy over evolution has offenders on both sides.
In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
is that it's trivial to form a proof with innocent looking assumptions that shows that we are running "in a simulation" .
So clearly you can't disprove the notion of a higher organization outside the universe which may or may not have influence on it (by design or by choice).
However, even if it is possible, we have no direct evidence of it. And to assume that what's outside is "God" is to jump the gun. It could be anything. It's just as likely that it's Lisa Simpson who created us accidentally for a science experiment.
I suppose it does no harm for someone to want to believe the possibility of such an entity being the God of Christiandom, as it were. But as it is also just as likely to be Eris the Goddess of Dischord, were this psycobabble to come up in weed-induced conversation with friends I'd rather dissuade anyone of calling it anything at all.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I think all Christianity lets you do is to stand by smugly and look down upon everyone else.
Meanwhile the rest of us are trying _really hard_ to figure this damn universe out and squeeze a few more generations out of this planet before we fuck it up.
Go ahead. Give up. It doesn't matter in the end. Too bad you can't off yourself cause that's a one way trip to the lake of fire. (eye roll)
*throws hands up*
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
There are still people who believe those reasons, and that's what I was originally refuting.
;)
And those are the people I was originally calling morons
is flat. And we'll burn your ass to death if you dare to think otherwise.
Ignorance is strength...
Privacy is terrorism.
Invading Iraq cannot be compared to invading France. Iraquis have been know to resist invasions!
When religious groups say there is no Evolutionary process just "Intelligent Design", aren't they really saying that God is not smart/powerful enough to kick off the process of Evolution that created mankind?
I can't help but think they are overly obsessed with the Adam and Eve story. Do they really believe women were made from a piece of rib, and that the bump in a man's throat is the remnants of an apple?
I think they lack faith in Gods abilities, when they ignore science.
Cheers
I'm the odd man out in an even number of participants
If you're not a scientist and you watch enough discovery channel, you'll quickly get the impression that scientists are never talking about theory or anything the least bit uncertain or falsifiable. Everything is presented as fact. If you believe what they say, then you'll believe that Evolutionary Theory is actually proven fact.
Let's not confuse this with another thing called Evolutionary Fact, which are the aspects of evolution that we know are true, because we have observed them directly. Rather, I'm talking about things for which we have a preponderance of evidence, but for which we cannot directly observe, because they happened too far in the past.
I believe scientists are frequently careless with their words.
Consider, for instance, some recent discoveries about therapods. A number of recent discoveries shed light on the development of feathers in relatives of the T-rex and ancestors to modern birds. The scientists on the TV weave a fanciful tail about how things "were", drawing huge numbers of new conclusions from small shreds of evidence presented. I'm sure there's more to their research than what was crammed into an hour-long show. The funny part is that the things they're presenting as FACT now directly contradict the FACTS presented only a year earlier on the same channel. To the scientist, obviously what we mean is that these are the facts as we know them based on the evidence. But that's not what they're TELLING people. They're just saying what they know and presenting it as incontrovertable fact.
What's funny is the way people rationalize this behavour by inventing the "common good" and so on. I guess you have to keep up the lie or else people might be tempted to go back to fighting civil wars again.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
It's understandable why many Americans don't believe in evolution -- It's because evolution only happens outside of the US.
The main reason for circumcision was to reduce the sensitivity of the glans (it removes 60% of the nerve endings in the penis). This reduces masturbation and decreases sexual drive. This might have been necessary to prevent men from prematurely/off-handedly impregnanting women they couldn't afford to take care of.
Instead you invent marriage, incorporate dowrys (sp), etc, where you create an environment where it's like: "OK, NOW you can fuck, make sum babies plz". Of course the guy can't acheive orgasm, he claims she's barren, and that's a stoning right there. Mmm Hmm.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
With 1,000+ comments already down, I doubt anyone will see this. However, I have an on-topic anecdote I think is worth sharing.
The gf and I were walking on the beach yesterday when we came across a crab. We both noticed that it looked and moved like a spider, and so, wondered aloud if they (crabs and spiders) are related.
They are.
Then we sat on the beach and watched the sky turn pink as the sun set. Somewhere in the sky I saw the face of God. Of course, it wasn't a literal face, but rather, some sort of symbology that was picked up and processed somewhere in my primordial brain.
I felt loved.
I accept that God is my creator, and I accept that [S]He might have used a methodology such as evolution to create me. If God is "intelligent", it might be argued that mine is an "intelligent design"- but that is an issue for Philosophy class, not Biology class; I know of no way to objectively test this hypothesis.
But Godless science? What unmitigated nonsense! Einstein was godless? Newton was godless? It hurts my soul to see a force as powerful as God being whored to win elections. If Jesus does exist, and if he keeps a watchful eye on us (as his fanatics declare), I have to assume he is very disappointed in us right now.
barack to the future?
Detroit, Michigan.
Ah, well, I see. And now I have to admit that it's pretty moronic to waste so much time arguing with them about it. It's like butting heads with a ram -- they're proud of their thick-headedness, and I only end up with a head ache.
The enemies of Democracy are
Seems to me one needs to recognize that there are different kinds of things called religion, some of which are incompatible with science and some of which are not. Furthermore, there are clear limitations to science that many anti-religionists seem unaware of.
So, let me introduce some terminology
Sort of equivalent smooshy terms:
A-Knowledge:
B-Knowledge:
Many readers will have tried to ride a bicycle. They will have had friends and acquaintences tell them how and they will have tried it and they may have succeeded. Those who have succeeded will recognize the distinction I'm trying to make between "A-Knowledge" and "B-Knowledge". The way that can be told is A-Knowledge -- it describes the process of riding the bike -- a verbal model. They will also know that it is entirely distinct from riding a bicycle. Talking about riding a bicycle is almost completely useless in learning to ride a bicycle. The only effective way to learn to ride a bicycle is to get on it and learn to feel the bike falling and learn how to counteract it. That's B-Knowledge.
Science is A-Knowledge -- it's purpose is to describe the universe and how it works -- it talks about how to ride a bike -- it's rational. (Being rational is running the models faster than real time in order to predict what will happen -- it's really a useful skill!)
Riding the bicycle provides B-Knowledge. The system is configured to react. It's a mystical experience -- it's a-rational -- rationality is not related to it at all.
Note that they do not conflict, they are independent of each other.
Some Religions try to provide an alternative kind of A-Knowledge. They can be in conflict with Science.
Some Religions are mystical. They explicity state that the stories they tell are "fingers, pointing at the moon" -- just like talking about riding a bicycle is -- it's trying to direct your attention to the experience, not claiming to be the experience. Of necessity, mystical experiences (such as riding a bike) cannot be communicated in words -- they must be experienced. They cannot be in conflict with science, since they're not in the same domain.
Science is never going to taste like anything -- it's all in the head.
"Salvation" is a word some religions use to name an experience, so they can talk about it. Talking about Salvation is not Salvation.
Some scientists may claim that there is no experience that "Salvation" names. Others may simply say that such an experience is not a proper object for study by science.
Science and Religion may be in conflict about that, and regardless of which is "correct" they're both irrelevant to the experience, if it exists.
Unfortunately for us, our educational system these days strongly favors A-Knowledge and whenever something needs to be cut, it's likely to be programs (Art, Music, Physical Education) that teach B-Knowledge. So much so that many people seem to fail to recognize these distinctions -- they seem to think that everything is, or at least ought to be, rational...
Dude, eating's not rational, it's mystical.
A friend recently posted the Sunday Creationist strip of Doonsbury in his blog. Very funny strip.
"I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
They have an abnormal number of chromosones and many don't even know.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Yes, I am sure that stat is right. But there is one fundamental difference here: The alien believers of the world aren't passing laws equating their alien-beliefs with non-believers.
/. so much, and rightly so.
The same can not be said for evolution. Just look at what Kansas did. That's why it's on
And, apparently evolution was reversed by some British scientists.
"What we have done is essentially go back in time to when Hox1 did what Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 do today," said Mario Capecchi, professor of human genetics at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
"It gives a real example of how evolution works because we can reverse it."
IDers are teh morans.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
"If humans evolved from apes...why are there still apes?"
Well, we almost fixed that. Just give us a few more decades.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
It is either murder, which should always be opposed, or it isn't. If the problem you have with it isn't that you think it's murder, what IS the problem you have with it?
Your position baffles as much as the people who are "opposed, except in case of rape and incest."
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
This is all tied together. The less educated the populace, the more mob rule and political control authority can put on us. The oligarchs can lead the uneducated into anything including unfounded wars. It just happens to destroy our country's competitiveness and require massive importation of foreign-educated individuals to meet demand.
DJ hawking says:
"Fork....fork....fork the creationalists".
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"My name is Linus, and I am your god."
I have to say, that may be the best correction I've seen on slashdot. You actually make me happy to have made the typo in the first place.
If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
What does THAT mean? I presume something along the lines of "These naturalistic assumptions give me the answers I want to get", which is seriously begging the question.
You neither respect nor understand religion or religious people. Therefore, you have precisely zero chance of changing their mind. They are far smarter and more thoughtful than you think.
reducto ad googlerarium
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
What I don't get about all the Intelligent Design crap is that they say that there is evidence of a designer, but they only believe in the one god. The universe is so vast and complex that surely it would take at least a dozen or so REALLY brainy god-dudes to come up with all this stuff. So why aren't the god-squadders advocating a belief system based on lots of gods, all with their specific departments? They argue that there is evidence for an intelligent designer, but I've yet to see anyone put forward a case that there weren't a load of em. In fact at the moment they probably outsourced some of the work to 'gods of other religions' which leaves a lot of em unemployed, and pretty much explains why the weather's getting worse - damned out-of-work ID types too much time to play with their tornado and earthquake powers. At least Ganesh is able to scratch his own arse while he juggles - handy having all those arms, you never get bored.
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
it never will be found a creature that is more than brute and less than human.
How do you know that?
And there's plenty more evidence for the non-existenance of evolution!
Do you mean you have evidence that can disprove the current Theory of Evolution? What is it?
so just score it nothing as usual
Huh? This is your first post!
I wash mah-self with a rag on a stick.
Which is like saying "This is a square, not a quadrilateral".
Not in my view... more like saying "this is a trapazoid, not a rhombus..." er, or something like that...
While similar, Democracies are really, really bad governments historically, and there is a reason that there are no true democracies (as countries. Democracies make pretty good 5-15 person organizations). Republics take most of the fragility out of the system. Large populaces are very hot headed and gullible in the short term. Without tempering and slowing things down they blow themselves up very quickly and collapse into Fascism.
For instance, if the US were a democracy, on 9/12/2001 the middle east would have been a glass parking lot, Bush would be king and the constitution would be toilet paper. Being as we are a Republic, people can still kill each other freely in the middle east, Bush has term limits, and hey, we can use the extra toilet paper.
For those who believe that something in the sky created the earth in six days, and then created man from the sand and blew life into his nostrils, and then got pissed at the human race after awhile and flooded the earth except for one drunk who built a huge boat to house all male and female creatures, and then saved the life of a man by having a whale swallow him up, and then sent himself (his son) in the flesh to Earth to tell us that he doesn't really hate us anymore --- rather he loves us -- and then allowed him to nail himself to a tree to save our souls...
Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Honestly, what does it matter what a bunch of uninvolved spectators believe? Trying to ascribe some deep significance to popular opinion about Poincare's conjecture makes about as much sense. Yes, I think the political game played by Bush and his minions is disgraceful and irresponsible but I also look askance at the sort of rabble rousing implicit in this sort of report. Since when has science had any concern about the opinions of the unschooled? On the other hand does biological science research get more funding from the public anywhere more than the USA? I don't know the comparison for a fact but I do know the NIH has tremendous resources. The vast majority of citizens of any country will have nothing to do with the esoteric pursuit of advanced biological sciences. What does it matter what their opinion is if the relevant institutions are healthy? If people chose to investigate any details of modern high energy physics I doubt if their opinions on the subject would be very enlightened. This is just another opportunity for snooty Europeans to act as though they are oh so much more advanced than those unworthy colonists.
then we mutated. I guess I'm down with that.
What?
Jim, I don't like gwBush at all.
Science being a threat to faith is false.
Science and truth are very closely linked if not the same, but carefully discerned. Literaly, "Knowledge."
Science _confirms_ faith. The problem is then not being blind and incorrectly including nonsense, which could not be science by a strict definition. Problem is, so much as intruded into the 'fact' world that is 'farse' that you would say such a thing as "the concept of evolution becomes widely accepted then faith is voided and we enter moral decay (which is obviously wrong"
The problem I propose in contrast to the problem you propose is where you look for knowledge. You presuppose that macro-evolution is viable. I know that it is not, logically expounded, and in such a way that science confirms my faith, not threaten it.
In better words, "I only believe what I believe because I wouldn't believe it if it were not the truth."
//de ~ 9cimi
That said, there is a fringe of the scientific community that bears some of the blame for making this issue into the hot-potato that it is in my opinion. It is unfortunate, but there have always (well, at least since the 18th century if not sooner) been those on the fringe in science who embrace science as the antithesis of religion and go beyond what can be scientifically proven themselves in their efforts to vilify the religious sentiments of their peers. It's not surprising that some with strong religious sentiments would be alienated by such behavior, and might turn against scientific reasoning if they feel this abuse is representative of the scientific community as a whole.
No doubt you can cite examples of this...?
I have a cat that may have evolved from a tiger of some sort.
He certainly looks the part.
Apparently no one has taken the time to research where domestic cats come from.
I've always wondered how they could have evolved from something like the sabre toothed cat.
Probably not, considering the smaller teeth that my cat has.
Perhaps my cat evolved from another line of cats, here's a page with tons of info on that possibility.
Interesting, isn't it?
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
This Wikipedia page has links to dozens of specimens of various stages of human evolution. Some even with pictures! I know, I know, you might actually learn something that contradicts your small-mindedness, but it might be worth it.
This page on the Smithsonian Museum's website (I know, I know, it's a 'devil's facility', but bear with me) also has a lot of stuff on evolution, including specimens. But, again, you might actually learn something, and then your straw man would fall apart.
Follow these links with caution, Christian warrior!
What's really irrational is that the slashdot crowd cannot fathom in their biased minds that someone rational like myself with extensive schooling could possibly believe in the Genesis account of creation. They seem to have forgotten that science has gotten it wrong so many millions of times before. Spontaneous generation anyone? Sun revolving around the Earth? Everything composed of either earth, wind, fire or water? Oh those theories are so old! We're much too advanced to believe in false science theories? Oh really? Take a look at any medical journal today and compare it with what was believed 20 years ago or even 5. I've seen God work in the lives of those around me, sometimes most miraculously. I've seen the evidence that supports my belief in God, but if you're too blind to even look for it, you will never find it.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
However, scientists are finding that when people do use excellent hygiene, they get asthma and allergies and have weak immune systems. We need exposure to germs to develop resistance to disease.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
It discusses such things as:
This probably won't get read now with all the comments already posted on this story but I've got the urge to say it anyway.
A lot of people in here are arguing about either Religion Can't Have Science or Science Can't Have Religion, but I think there's another way, call it a simpler way, and I'll grab an example straight from my childhood.
I remember when I was barely fourteen reading somewhere in the new testament that Jesus told people not to go to church, not to go out and preach to others, and not to gather together in vast groups singing praise in a public spectacle (someone else can look up the details, my bible is packed away at the moment with my books on wicca and zen). Jesus said to be quiet in your beliefs, pray privately, and bring others to him through the power of your good actions and good creations.
Be humble in your faith.
Now, nowhere do I see Christians being humble when I turn on the television or read opinions on public forums like Slashdot, and that is a dual-natured comment - if you're being humble you're not advertising it and I won't know, otherwise you're "shouting it from the rooftops" and not being humble.
I've studied, and forgotten so please forgive my mistakes, a lot of science and a lot of religions over the years. I've also read some good satire by authors called Terry Pratchett and Grant Naylor (two people), and some thought provoking stuff that focused not on Religion itself but how we came to have aspects of a religion today.
My point is that we as human beings have something that is an intangible, like our intelligence and emotions, but is more important than religion or science because it drives us to poke, prod, and stick a fork in the power socket of the universe and see what will happen. We have our own spirit, the sum of our emotions and memories.
Our will and compassion is part of our spirit, so we see great acts of humanity whenever disasters occur. Our love and our hate is part of our spirit, so we have friends, loved ones, and enemies.
Our intelligence is also part of our spirit, and this is where Science and Religion deviate. The human spirit is within the scientist who finds a new amoeba, and he feels it empowered at the revelation. The human spirit is within the born-again christian who devotes himself to god and feels god's love.
It has been said that God made Man, but Man made God first. This is an interesting idea because it implies that God, as labeled as omnipotent, is timeless. God is everywhere and everywhen.
I also like Pratchett's idea that Gods did not create anything because they are too lazy. His Discworld was made by a Creator who then went on to create something else, and something else, and so on, like an Intergalactic Hobbiest Engineer always striving to make a world that's Just Right.
I wonder, if in a universal time frame, if that is a more realistic view of how our world happened. The Creator knocked together the Earth, and then pissed off to build something else once Earth was sitting in a stable orbit around Sol. That would explain where the Moon came from anyway - it was intended to be a simple counterweight to keep this big ball balanced.
Our human spirit is the engine that drives us, and with it We empower Gods and Science alike.
Sure, you can argue that life is miraculous and wonderful if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we are made from the same stuff that a desk, chair, car, and Sol are all made of. There is no such thing as living atoms which make up animals and vegetables or dead atoms that make up minerals. We are animal, We are vegetable, and We are mineral.
Science has already explained how that works, so I'm not going to say it's wrong. Hell, you can do the experiments yourself and create the basic amino acids that build life from "dead" material, and Religion never said anyt
Te Quiero, Puta!
... that, sadly, Americans haven't evolved.
well there are numerous examples of scientifically minded people vilifying the religious point of view in the other replies to the original article right in this thread---examples where the argument is based completely on non-scientific reasoning. Like the ones that proclaim that religion and god are a thing of the past. :-b
i /specified.complexity.html
That is not a new argument. It has been stated numerous times in one form or another ever since the reformation (i.e., once church and state started to separate from each other). Probably sooner. I get the feeling that Richard Dawkins has sometimes been guilty of the same in contemporary circles, but I can't really find a good example of that, so maybe I am mistaken there.
For my comments on the ID proponents:
Michael Behe is the sort who seems completely sincere but when you pick apart his arguments that so-called "irreducible complexity" has already been observed in known biological systems he talks in logical circles and doesn't seem to realize that he's implicitly assuming that the system is irreducibly complex as one of the premises of his argument for why it is irreducibly complex.
Background: to ID theorists, the existence of an irreducibly complex biological system is the holy grail that proves the designer. Because irreducibly complex means, essentially by definition, that the system could not have evolved to its current state. It had to have started in that state (they say), and this in turn proves the existence of the designer. Logically this is absurd because anything you don't sufficiently understand can be proclaimed irreducibly complex because there is no precise notion of what determines something to be biologically irreducible. They are essentially looking for the "prime numbers" of the biological world and think they can prove that complex biological systems that actually already serve specific functions ARE these "prime numbers". One classic example that they have given in the past is the bacterium's flagellum. I have no idea if any of them still believes that the bacterium's flagellum is irreducibly complex but they did at one point.
William Dembski is the far more insidious sort in my opinion. His attempt to build a mathematical framework for irreducible complexity is utter poppy-cock. This is going to sound harsh, but in my opinion, the man seem to be either insane, or systematically disingenuous. I'm hard pressed to believe that one could use so much obscure mathematical jargon and not secretly realize that one's logic is completely without premise. Reading his works leaves the distinct impression that he knows he is talking out of his arse, and is using the convoluted jargon and terminology in an intentional effort to confuse the reader into thinking that he's proven something that he hasn't. It seems to me that it is either that, or he actually has no idea what the heck the terminology he is using actually means. The man builds entire theses on mathematical terminology that he invented, but which he never clearly defines. To any mathematically rigorous thinker, this is the immediate red flag. If nothing else, one thing that is always true about mathematics is that mathematical reasoning always begins with precision in the definition of terms. But that is not his starting point. Instead, he defines vaguely, and then takes advantage of the vagueness in his terms to enable himself to adjust the implied definition of the terms (implied from the context in which he uses them) to suit the paragraph at hand. It's all hand waving nonsense because the definition he uses on one page is incompatible with the definition he uses for the same term in some other page. He then proclaims at the end that he has proven something momentous. But the premise of it all is this imprecisely defined terminology. His notion of "complex specified information" is a specific example of this, in my opinion. Others have disected it better than I: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembsk
In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
It's called a fork in development. Consider OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
I was about to jump on that and claim "Proof of ID" but after thinking about some of the linux code I've seen* that this really proves the opposite.
-Qyiet
*(never looked at BSD code myself but I assume it's similar)
Not only "common ancestor" of human and apes does not exist. Conveniently, none of them exist. The fossils found are not of a common ancestor. The fact that it is similar to ape and human does not mean evolution of both species from it in the same way the similarity between human and ape does not mean that human evolved from ape as we know them.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Bottom line is that no matter what the reason for dragging us into this the Bushies have wracked up such a large toll in $$$ and lives that they need to go. He is far and away the worst president we've had and the worst republican congress we've ever seen.
Sounds more or less correct. This is Abraham Lincolns own words: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Basically he didn't give a shit about the slaves.
Whether you intended that to be taken lightly or not; you seem to totally avoid H. erectus (even if you don't believe Java man or Peking man there is also Turkana/Nariokotome boy and H. heidelbergensis. While they may have been less "ape" and more "man", rather cogent evidence exists pointing to their gradual development to present mankind.
> Because there is no practical way to differentiate between "something we don't understand yet", and "something we cannot understand". There isn't anything you can point to and say "that's forever incomprehensible". They used to say that about life and now we have molecular biology, for example.
If you need an example, we might never understand exactly which things we are incapable of ever understanding...
But especially when very high energy physics (e.g. Big Bang type cosmology) is so poorly understood (or, to be more exact, we're unable to properly observe & test some cases because we don't have enough energy), we might never have enough available energy to do the experiements required to prove exactly what happened--there might not be that much in all the universe, and Shannon's law ensures that our past is being slowly erased with every passing second (due to entropy, the universe is incapable of containing full information on its own past). Actually, that use of Shannon's law alone is good enough to prove there are unknowable things...
In other words, whatever faith you have in there being nothing we cannot ever understand, it's badly misplaced, and not supported by any known science. Moreover, we do not have an infinite amount of time--we're bounded by entropy, you know (it will inevitably kill us all, albeit not for a very long time)--and there are surely an infinite number of knowable things, yet there can never be an infinite number of people. Using the pigeon hole principle there, we'll never be able to fill all the holes.
Would you like me to think up other reasons, all based on known science, why your theory is irrational?
A friend of mine once said: There are more birth defects among Born Again Christians than any other religious group. I think survey proves this point.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
According to a leaked memo from the HR department, during his annual evaluation God was found to be a huge control freak, who doesn't work well in teams, doesn't always communicate clearly, can be a bit too harsh when meting out punishment, and perhaps worst of all, has a serious God complex. They had to let him go.
The Theory of Creationism has been around since 4004 BC. There should be scores of photos of actual evidence that undeniably support this theory. Let's see...
Either it's a theory or it's not. Quit trying to compare it to other theories to try and make it seem more than a theory. It's a theory! Do you have video of all the monkeys giving birth until they were slowly giving birth to creatures that look more and more human? Of course not and you never will. There are a few pieces of evidence that support evolution and there are other pieces of evidence that support creation. You simply choose to believe the evidence is in your favor as I choose to believe the evidence is in mine.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
> I've always wondered how they could have evolved from something like the sabre toothed cat.
Actually, it is the other way around. Large, saber-tooth cats evolved separately several times throughout history from different base feline stocks. The domestic house cat likely derives from similar sized wild cats: http://ds.dial.pipex.com/agarman/blackfoo.htm/
The USA, and THIRTY-TWO! 'European countries' (are there that many countries in Europe?) as well as Japan were asked.
Once again, no one asked Canada to the dance.
It's just as well- along with Iceland, Japan and Denmark, we would probably also place higher than the US...
But I DO get chagrined when we somehow always seem to get lumped in with the great unwashed south of the 45th/42nd parallel.
.
- aqk
F U
If you're using the term "Democracy" to mean "Direct Democracy", then it would be simpler if you would do so. A Republic is a form of Democracy. A Republic, at least as used to describe the United States, is better said as "Representative Democracy", if only because historically "Republic" has not necessarily implied any form of elected representation at all, it merely meant a state ruled by something other than a hereditary monarch, usually a President.
But you're right that representative democracy has its advantages over a direct democracy. As Plato noted, Democracy is doomed as soon as the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the coffers. Instead only a select elite have that power. By the way, the last line of your post made me chuckle. Extra TP indeed.
The enemies of Democracy are
He must be new here...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
However both species while incapable of breeding are still fundamentally the same species. It is not like your going to end up with a walrus on one end, amd an elephant on the other, even though I could draw similarities amoungst both at all levels.
Why not, if you gave it enough time? Do you believe that mutations create genetic changes in a species over time which are selected for via natural selection to adapt it to its environment or not?
If you accept that they could mutate to the point of being incapable of breeding, then they won't share the same mutations, and you've already acknowledge that the species can undergo fundamental changes.
You're basically saying "I believe in microevolution, but not that it could change a species a lot." But really, changing pieces of genetic code can have a very large effect. Especially if you add up thousands and thousands of changes over millions of years, then yes you do end up with walruses and elephants and a plethora of differently mutated populations that long ago were part of the same population.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm inclined to fucking agree.
Yep. If we had a total nuclear war that wiped out humans, I bet we would still have about zillion cockroaches running around and thriving.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Don't take it so hard. Evolution is just the religion these guys follow.
I suggest you go look up "religion" in the dictionary.
It's popular with people who don't want to believe they will have to answer to a high power than themselves.
What does who it's popular with have anything to do with whether it's true?
Look how seductive it is for them to believe that they are the current culmination of advanced life.
Actually, it's Christianity that says humans are something special, not science. Any reasonable scientist will tell you that humans are just another species. But, if by "advanced" you mean "intelligent", we obviously are according to anyone, scientific or religious.
It makes them gods which is ironically what they don't want to believe in
Explain how being the "most advanced life form on earth" is equivalent to being a "god".
but don't happen to mind being as long as their little pseudo-science keeps whispering words of comfort to them.
Are you serious? Pseudo-science? If you have some sort of valid reason that the theory of evolution is bad science, you should be able to disprove it. I highly suggest that you write this up and have it published in some sort of reputable journal. You should be out celebrating your Nobel prize, not posting on Slashdot.
For more than thirty years they've been studying the programming language but still refuse to recognize the programmer.
I have no idea (this isn't rhetoric, I really do have no idea) where you got the number 30 from. Also, I fail to see how anything we're talking about can be held to a valid analogy with programmers and programming languages.
They permit their litte pet theory to flaunt KNOWN laws of physics such as entropy (sorry, sunlight only amounts to random radiation) which HAVE been tested and are continually REPOVEN in new and different ways by every new physics student trying to get a Phd.
What are you talking about? Care to expand on this?
I have FAITH that a majority of people who actually believe in evolution are liberal arts majors who want a good excuse to behave irresponsibly or just people who took their Weekly Readers too literally.
I'm not even going to bother looking up the number of liberal arts majors and evolution believers in the world to prove you wrong. I suggest you go look up the word "majority" in the dictionary.
Gee whizz, I guess since we've only been keeping actual standardized scientific records for over a hundred years we already can speak with authority on what has and has not happened in the last purportedly 4.5 billion.
Just because the scientific community didn't actually witness the progress of macroevolution doesn't mean there's no evidence of it now. We weren't here to see the continents united as Pangaea, the ice ages, or the big bang, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
I beg you to look at my responses not from a Christian perspective but from a rational one before you respond. I've tried to be civil and avoid personal attacks and too much sarcasm, and I hope you'll do the same so that we can have a civil, rational discussion.
Le français vous intéresse?
Judging from our pop culture I'd have to agree, but I'm sure we'll be evolving sometime soon. [ maybe after the mid-term elections :-) ]
I'm reminded of the Ask.com commercial where the guy says, "without tools, we're just..." and the orangutan (wearing pants) says, "animals in pants?".
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/atheists_riddle. htm
Listen to that. (really listen to the whole thing). And then give me one tiny example of a language that came about without a mind.
I'm no theologian, nor rabid christian fundamentalist, but I am familiar with the explanation for this particular quote.
"God" is non-physical. This verse says that "Man", being created in the image and likeness of god, is fundamentally non-physical too - call it spirit, soul or whatever. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34).
"God" has both male and female attributes. So does the human spirit, which is both "male AND female". In the process of taking on a physical body, certain attributes usually get emphasized and others suppressed, depending on the gender of the body taken on, in a yin/yang sorta way.
Exceptions occur when the entity taking on a body has other lessons they need to learn, something about gender roles or whatnot.
See the Edgar Cayce material -
KJV Genesis (1st result from google) bible quotes from: http://www.rosicrucian.com/bible/01_gen.htm
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
>"If humans evolved from apes...why are there still apes?"
This has to be the single dumbest argument against evolution.
"Evolved from" is not the same as "Turned into".
No, nobody's been able to create DNA through random chance, however a reproducable experiment shows that nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) will form at random given the right conditions. And we know that nucleotides will link up with each other at random. Given time and/or concurrent repetitions anything will happen. Therefore, since nucleotides will form at random, and since those nucleotides will link together at random, there is a chance of them randomly forming a useful DNA strand. Of course DNA is not enough, you need something to protect the DNA, you need different chemicals and things to manipulate it and make something useful out of it. Again, that can happen at random.
There are plenty of ways of explaining the fact that, despite it being a rather slim chance of all these things occurring, they did, without resorting to a diety, of course, you still have to accept them on faith as there's probably no way of testing it. One is the multiverse theory where there is an infinate number of universes, any time something has at least two different outcomes, all outcomes happen, just with a split of the universe. Thus it was inevitable. This is the one I subscribe to.
I'm not saying that I deny the existance of God or some other diety, the other theories are just more plausable to me.
I see the universe as a set of probabilities, the probability that I exist is the most probable at just under 100% and the probability that the purple, six-legged, long-necked, five-eyed tree moose that's sitting in the chair next to me exists is pretty close to 0%... It could be that I don't exist but he does, just not very probable. Thus, I think it's a possibility that Judaism, its derivatives, Hinduism, etc. are right, just not probable. In my opinion.
(Of course, given the multiverse theory, they are all right, somewhere...)
Having looked at GW Bush, how can anyone doubt that we evolved from apes?
"It's called a fork in development. Consider OpenBSD and FreeBSD."
A clear example of intelligent design. I'm sure OBSD and FBSD would not have forked without a conscious decision-maker.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Richard Dawkin's "The Root Of All Evil" Did anybody else watch this? Easily the best program I've seen all year, hoorah for Channel 4. THE most scary person in it was Pastor Ted Haggard of the New Life Church. I find him more frightening than any of the "other side" because he apparently has the right ear of your eejut president. AND he's as blind, zealous and as fundamental as any Islamic terrorist. And now, much to my shame, religious schools are opening in England. Parents are segregating the children and choosing schools where their children will be in the ethnic majority. Theres even speculation that Sharia law may begin to influence the British legal system. People are asking for it, requesting special student loans to not contravene Sharia. Inheritance laws to take into account allowing four wives. It's all getting a bit scary isn't it?
J1M.
from the i-do-not-think-that-word-means-what-you-think-it-m eans dept.
United States Science Politics
Stern Thinker writes "In a 2005 poll covering 33 countries, Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish) to assert that they have evolved. Iceland, meanwhile, has an 85% acceptance rating for their evolution. The blurb on the site for Science magazine is less circumspect about the findings: "The advancement of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States."
Evolution is the acceptance that evolution exists!
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
First, the blatantly false headline, claiming to speak for all Americans. Next, the link goes to an insubstantiated blog which in turn links to an even smaller claim. Resulting in a net-legend based on bullshit. I didn't even have to look to confirm that Zonk approved it.
If I believed it existed, I'd say we're all going to hell in a basket.
But I don't.
[sits and twiddles thumbs while searching for alternative turn of phrase]
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
Didn't RTFA, but I'm curious - did they poll the same percentage of the population in each country?
In other words, eugenics and misogynistic pseudo-research is banned and rightly so.
Americans are the least likely (except for Turkish respondents) to assert that 'humans developed ... from earlier species of animals.'
I belive Americans when they say they haven't evolved.
Consistency requires logic. Logic is quite often in case of a lot of people repulsive with belief/religion.
You can believe in something you do not understand. But you can not understand something you do not believe.
Thus, you can logicaly understand something and believe in it thus also exercising consistency (as long as your information is correct). But if you just believe in something without understanding it, the amount of your inconsistencies rise with the complexity of your beliefs.
And I believe our world (let alone universe) is quite complex so the probability of inconsistencies is quite high. But also this statement may be inconsistent. :)
Of course all the above statements are valid only if I believe that I do exist and that other people do exist too. :)
But back to what you said: I believe that in the event of bird-flu killing humans there will be very low number of causalties between those who reject evolution. Becuase I think they believe for example that God loves them and wants them to spread such belief so they will choose "lesser evil", take the vaccine and survive.
So I think, bird flu will not reduce the number of people who reject evolution.
So I advice supporters of evolution to cease to be too optimistic, instead become more pesimistic and not expect their opposition to magicaly vanish (because of ... say .. bird-flu).
Final note to this "pesimistic" thing: Such evolutional pressure may result in people more resistant to stress. But, of course, only if this "evolution" is real.
hany
Possibly because the US is often held as a shining example of western culture and progress. the countries on the same end of the scale as the US here are often seen as backwards and "behind the times".
Eat the rich.
I resent the fact that you attempt to castrate God. The quote you have pulled from Hebrews in no way addresses the mechanisms by which a creator may have chosen to create the creation. We don't know how creation occurred; we don't know how human's came to be; we don't know what "judgement" means on the context of the verse you pulled -- I don't have my annotated translation with me. Ancient Hebrew society was as much bound into social issues as theological issues. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the judgement also includes the eulogy by the people at the time of death. There is much you do not know -- get over it.
"The main reason for circumcision was to reduce the sensitivity of the glans (it removes 60% of the nerve endings in the penis)."
:)
And your reference for this material is???
"Of course the guy can't acheive orgasm, he claims she's barren, and that's a stoning right there. Mmm Hmm."
Now you are a complete moron. Yeah that's it millions of males all over the world can't achieve ejaculation because of circumision. What a load of bull-shit. There isn't one reputable study that clearly shows a drop in sensation because of circumision.
Put another way - it hasn't stop me from masturbating
Thank you and good night.
>It's sad that most Christians base their faith on The Bible
>and not the teachings of Christ.
(spits coffee)
Uh, what? Did you really type that?
Where exactly do you think we can find "the teachings of Christ", if not in the Bible? As written by those who knew Him (and the prophets who saw Him dimly in the future - yes, Jesus says in the gospels that the OT writers were writing about Him)?
...creationism and evolution. The book of Genesis describes how God created the world in seven days. However, few seem to understand that seven current days COULD actually be shorter than when the heavens and earth were created.
I had this exact conversation with my former Pastor (Baptist) and he readily concedes that there is no reference to length of days anywhere in Genesis. I have argued this point until I'm blue in the face with hardcore Bible Thumpers who argue that the Bible says a day in Genesis = 24 hours. My reply is, "I'm from Missoura...show me!" Guess what, they can't!
It isn't necessarily an American thing so much as it is certain narrow-minded "Christians" who take the Word in the Bible and twist it to fit their own agendas. People will believe what they believe and you are unlikely to change those peoples' minds.
Remember...David Koresh and Jim Jones were "Christians" too...
I wouldn't call an omnipotent entity using its powers to hide from us until we don't believe in its existance anymore, and then punishing us for falling for its little joke, "perfectly just and righteous".
But then, wihle I actually believed in God, I've always pictured her/him/it to be more like a mixture of Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Alanis Morissette, and less like a crossover of Hitler, Osama Bin Laden and a grumpy old man chasing kids off his lawn.
Free as in mason.
I strongly subscribe to Science, and all the advances it gives us. Of course, just before I die, I plan on renouncing science and embrassing any religion I can get into. That is the Scientific thing to do!
>Ahh, but humans didn't evolve from apes; they shared a common
>ancestor [bbc.co.uk] (who no longer exists).
Which in common speech, if we met one, would surely be called an ape.
.....I would rather go there with dignity than worship a childish entity who gives infinite tortuous punishment .....
Nowhere did I mention anything about hell or punishment, but simply perfect justice. If you believe that your life conduct justly has earned you punishment, than that's what you'll get from the God os justice. Even imperfect human justice tries mostly to avoid punishing those who are innocent.
All theory is gray
....It is not out of the realm of possibility that the judgement also includes the eulogy by the people at the time of death.....
No, it is how you lived your life in the light of God's perfection that He uses as criteria for judgment.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev20:12)
The alternative to justice is to accept God's mercy offered in Jesus.
All theory is gray
The entirety of your post is a sophism that I have never seen confirmed in my very many interactions with scientists and doctors, whose working lives depend on science.
At even the lowest levels of undergraduate science courses, the scientific method is truly something people practice. I have taken the classes, have been there in the labs when things didn't go according to plan, and have worked with the doctors whose approach to the treatment of ulcers or cervical cancer has changed dramatically within my short working life so far.
To compare scientists with fundamentalists as a way of leveling the playing field is just plain a load of crap. You talk about historical examples -- as if the most dramatic ones weren't cases in which authoritarian religions crushed scientific enquiry with deadly force.
Your post is nothing but a talking point, and one I've seen refuted at every level of scientific enquiry I've ever been around. The contrast with fundamentalism -- and yeah, I have relations on both sides of my family who fit there -- could not be more dramatic. The difference is not what they believe, it's how they believe it and live according to it.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
If they refuse to believe in evolution, they won't recognise their own de-volution when it kicks in. ... ?
Did I say when
Or maybe they just need to elect the Flying Spaghetti Monster as their next president!
http://flyingspaghettimonster.org/
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
You are mixing terms and concepts to suit your agenda.
Faith is blind, unquestionable and unquestioning.
Trust isn't none of these and needs to be earned.
The current system by which I board a plane and can reasonable expect to make it to my destination is based in trust.
Pilots, civic aviation authorities, airlines have earned that trust for many years with hard work and applied science.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh the bible. A book.
Written by sheep herders 2000 or more years ago.
And that is true exactly why?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oh, I understand, though I doubt anyone in this society would actually fight over any of it (outside of a bar). Democracy is more about keeping the people happy than actually empowering them.
Any system would work well, if we had a way of putting the right people in the right places. Democracy is a terrible way of doing that, but since we vote the morons into office we feel like we're in control, and that our actions affect the outcome. So when bad stuff comes down the pipe, it's all the fault of the *insert name of other party* not the idiots who are actually in charge, so we end up with agression directed at our fellow citizens, rather than at our rulers.
Pretty clever.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"the fact is, education is far worse in the USA then in alot of other countries (and certainly compared by European standards)."
3 8 [go.com] ) and hear it from a USA compatriot. ;-)"
and
"But hey, don't believe me; go watch 'stupid in america' ( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=15003
It's about the education, I don't say anything about fundamentalism here.
Maybe you were mistaken with 'TFA'; this was a reference about *THIS* FA (on slashdot), obviously. BOTH things contribute to the poor performance of science in the USA, however.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Basically, that's why democracy sucks: people can't be bothered to be anything other than ignorant.
I would argue that democracy, by its nature, requires "specialists". Logic follows that a "specialist" is blissfully ignorant of other issues.
How can one be both an expert on radiation and the effect on populations... as well as being a top political mind... as well as being an expert stock broker... you get the idea.
We specialise in democracies because that is what is called for.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
Darwin was a religious man.
For bunnies sakes, read, inform yourself, don't be fooled so easily, don't chew propagand even if it appeals to your instincts and feelings.
Darwin was desperate because he, beng a religious man, could see clearly the implication of what his good science was showing him.
Evolution was not invented out of thin air by atheist conspirators.
The theory has developped via multiple observations that have been supporting each other, in many different fileds (antropology, paleontology, ecology, geology, nuclear physics, genetics). There is no cabal to undermine religion. Religion is undermined because it has no logical foundations. It may hurt, but it is the way it is adn no amount of conspiracy theories will change this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Where he (because it is always he, isn't it?) decides to intervine only in instances where science has not explained his divine intervention.
Big Doh! to you for this rubbish "philosophy".
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
As with all deductive proofs of a religious nature, this only works if I accept all the premises as given. Anselm did the same trick a thousand years ago, and he did it better. All I need to say is, "DNA is not a language". Deoxyribonucleic acid...Acids are just common reactive chemical compounds, and while dna is more complex (only an acid because of some convieniently placed phosphate groups), acids occur everywhere in nature and their origins are not in the least mysterious.
So, instead of indulging in deductive masturbation, please point to something, anything, whose existence is only explainable through creation by a omnipotent creator.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I am not a lawyer. This post does not constitute any form of legal advice.
"Just because you can't duplicate it in a lab doesn't mean you can't come up with a huge body of supporting evidence."
What???? Does this mean I can't anymore say "The sun does not exist" since it can't be created at Bell Labs???
Where were you when the voynix came?
"in which parts of the Bible, such as Jesus' parables, swim"
? Wasn't he known for walking on the water, not swimming in it?
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Gotta listen to Fox News, because, you know, they're Fair and Balanced."
I prefer to listen to them instead because, out of all the cable networks, they have the louduest logos. They whiz, roar, and kerchunk all over the screen with deafening volume. It is really quite mesmerizing. That, and Bill O'Reilly appears to have the most fascinatingly bad pancake-makeup job.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Anyway, I challenge anyone to distinguish between coherent descriptions of the world view of a sufferer from paranoid schizophrenia, from that of a Believer.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
If you think that Bush and his cronies invented the term WMD, perhaps you should look up the history of the term. Of course it's obviously been used by them to scare up images of nuclear weapons even when it doesn't only mean that, but they were far from the first to use it to describe biological or chemical weapons.
I didn't mean to imply that the Bush administration created the term *WMD*. They don't invent these words and phrases, they just determine which ones will be useful to control the language of the debate. However, that term was not widely used before Gulf War 2, and now it's a common part of the foreign policy vernacular used by the news media. Which, like I said earlier, put's a 25-year old artillery shell into the same category as a nuclear-tipped ICBM. But then, no one can beat the Republicans for controlling the language of the political debate these days (ie. "The Death Tax", "Pro-Life", etc.), with a happily complient news media to help out. It pretty much makes real political discourse difficult if not impossible. Which is probably why we don't actually have any.
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
Otherwise lead paint, arsenic, asbestos, radon, old batteries and cow manure have to be considered WMD's, too.
There is so much wrong with everything you said that you are either trolling or incredibly ignorant.
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
I wasn't trolling and I hope I'm not incredibly ignorant. Care to point out where I'm wrong?
Le français vous intéresse?
"Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. "
If this has captured your intellect, please read Babu Ranganathan's full article here
Species mutations and natural selection do not prove evolution!
There is more evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ than for evolution!
Our understanding of nature is tenuous at best!
Honor, modesty, virtue, and wisdom.
If you honestly believe that humanitarian concern for Iraqis was a high priority in Bush's mind... wow. I have no words.
Please, prove otherwise. Granted it might not have been HIS primary concern, but the actual invation plan of Iraq has been brewing since sometime during the Clinton administration, with many other minds working on it.
but it is indisputable that the threat of WMD was the way they chose to sell the war to the American public. I'm not disputing this. And if the powers that be actually new that there were no WMDs to speak of, then yes accountability is going to be a key issue, if though, they actually beleived that there were WMDs, then their actions becomes more justified. I'm not sure of the answer to this, but this is the key question.
There are some schools of thought out there that think that what the public thinks or knows doesn't really matter, since the public are ignorant of their own best interests, and too easily swayed by media/emotion/party affiliation to critically analyze big issues such as war. I don't agree with this philosophy fully, but it does serve to illuminate a question: if they knew what their motives to war were, could it still be said to be under false pretenses? What does the public have to do with it, last time I checked a public vote was not needed to start a war, and the accountability comes from not re-electing the people who supported it.
Again I'm ambigious about the previous paragraph, I find it rather distateful, but this thought is out there.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Okay, I don't have a source offhand for anthropological evidence for why circumcision came about, but I'm sure I can cook up a few on Lexis Nexus or Wikipedia (I read it in some magazine for a class a few years back).
And yes, you lose upwards of 50% (60% is typical) of the nerve endings because they are most concentrated in that area.
Refs: http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You could corrolate this to other studies which have shown that by far, more people attend church regularly in the U.S. than they do in Europe. It logically follows IMO that anyone who is devoutly religious in a religion with a creation story would doubt evolution. Even though this has been falling in the U.S., it's still a lot lower in Europe. In some places churches struggle to survive financially because nobody comes to services.
As for politicizing science, yes that definitely goes on, but it's not just on the right. It happens on the left, too. I am troubled by it. What I am even more troubled about is how the very disciplines that are politicized try to deny it. In some cases if people point it out, scientists, of all people, will go on a smear campaign against those who do so. Have we forgotten what science is about? I fear that in some quarters the scientific discipline has been thrown out the window, but its practitioners still call it science, if only because it confers legitimacy to a pet theory.
I am sure that from the time the U.S. government started funding scientific projects there were those who feared that one day it would come to this. Once government gets involved in funding something it's inevitable that politics will enter it into it because government is a "political animal". Yes it has lots of money to fund projects, but there are strings attached. There's no getting away from that.
"So remember the new number: 0118-999-88199-9119-725...3"
What do you expect from a country in which
nearly half the voting public voted for G.W. Bush
for president TWICE!
Anything NOT worth doing is NOT worth doing well...
Lot's of science isn't provable either, and never will be. The origins of the universe will never be proven. Just about everything we observe outside of our own planet (and in particular, outside of the solar system) is based on guesswork. We make assumptions that such and such emits so and so and that's why it works the way it does. We put forth pieces that fit what we think we see. People trust that science get's it right and have faith in what they are told, some people even see for themselves, but many things are unverifiable to the general population and will probably remain so.
And to be clear, I'm not arguing against science, I'm pro-science, I believe we evolved, etc.
I'll also assume you mean by believer, someone who is bordering on fanatical.
The biggest qualm I have with religion is the majority of people IMHO only believe it because they were told so and so first. Religion as an institution. For anyone who has seriously spent time questioning their faith, who has really struggled with those questions, and still come out believing (and not out of some the "alternative sucks" thought process), real faith, I've got respect for.
-William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
Well before i can carefully answer you, I need to some of your axioms.
None of them have to be exact values- I'm not engaged in a gotcha game here. Just round figures so we have some baselines to work from.
How many years ago was the universe created?
How many years ago was the earth created?
How many years ago did the earth become habitable by any form of life?
Was the first life on earth created by another being? If so - how many years ago?
How many years ago did the earth become habitable by man?
How long ago did the first human come into existence?
Was the first man created from *nothing*- essentially finished as a modern human?
---
I'll answer based on my values for these.
How many years ago was the universe created?
about 16 to 20 billion years ago- based on measurements that make younger values impossible unless the universe was created with false evidence that it was older.
How many years ago was the earth created?
about 4 billion years ago- based on measurements that make younger values impossible unless the universe was created with false evidence that it was older.
How many years ago did the earth become habitable by any form of life?
about 3.5 billion years ago- based on measurements that make younger values impossible unless the universe was created with false evidence that it was older.
Was the first life on earth created by another being? If so - how many years ago?
I don't know. It could have been created by a deity- it could have been seeded by a space alien in a space ship- it could have been seeded by spores on meteors from older systems.
How many years ago did the earth become habitable by man?
About 1 billion years ago. Before that, most of the land was barren.
How long ago did the first human come into existence?
Artifacts suggest more than 25k years ago.
Genetic evidence suggests an "eve" about 50k years ago.
Was the first man created from *nothing*- essentially finished as a modern human?
This doesn't make sense based on genetics.
Man's genetic structures are most similar to apes. There are well recognized genetic techniques which have been used to make predictions which were true (and so supported the theory). So either man was created- but for some reason the creator specifically created a huge amount of false evidence that we are genetically related to certain other species or -- more likely-- we descend from a common apelike ancester.
Questions and speculation:
Why would a creator make a universe which has so much false evidence pointing to it being old?
Why would a creator make a universe... let it sit for *OVER* 15 billion years without humans in it and then finally get around to creating humans?
Why would a creator make a species with has so much false evidence pointing to it being descended from other species?
So... If there was a creator and it created the ENTIRE universe 16+ billion years ago... AND set basic rules that cause life to arise on every habitable planet, then we are not that special and there are *billions* of other planets with billions of intelligent beings on them. Clearly, there are billions of other stars and it looks more likely that lots of them have habitable planets every day.
Just as likely, the creator might create universes like a clam creates shells. Universes may just be a byproduct of some other process.
---
I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't know if god created the universe. I don't know if there is a real god whether the real god is shiva, thor, god, allah, or some other god we don't even worship any more. It's likely that if god is real, that one of the existing religions are worshiping the correct god (i'd assume god would put his thumb on the scales now and then for it's chosen religion).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I notice that the only two examples of homonids you've referenced are the two discredited examples that make up a tiny minority of the actual set of interesting fossil finds. How much research have you actually done, and where? Did you happen to do all of your research here?
It's not just that the DNA is similar. It's also that non-coding regions that have no reason to be similar are similar in exactly the way we would expect them to be. It's also interesting to note that the difference in chromosome count between us and apes can be explained by fusion of two chromosomes... and the genetic evidence shows that one of our chromosomes is a fusion of the information contained in two of the ape chromosomes. Interesting discussion of such translocations here.
If you actually examine it beyond the "our genes our similar" level, the evidence is extraordinarily compelling.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Actually, I agree with the first guy.
You seem like a decent fellow so you are probably not lying when you said you were not trolling.
Ergo, using logical deduction...
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Additional evidence that mankind's evolution is far from finished. Unfortunately it seems that a considerable percentage of the bloodlines in the US are well involved the process of devolution, at least intellectually and socially. Oh papa I am so 'shamed.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
"It is appointed unto man to die once, but after that comes the judgment" (Hebrews 9:26)
Nobody disputes the first part of this ONE sentence, but everyone who believes in evolution fervently denies the second part.
You have just made the crazy claim that the MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS Do Not Exist.
If you want to disagree with them, fine. If you admit that you simply follow a different minority-sect version of Christianity, if you simply claim that you think that majority mainstream Christianity is misunderstanding the Bible, fine. If you simply want to claim that you think your flavor of religion is Right and their flavor of religion is Wrong, fine whatever. However to claim that evolution is incompatible with God and that Christians who accept evolution do not exist, that is not merely wrong. That is so flagrantly wrong and so out of contact with reality as to qualify as delusional.
For some weird inexplicable reason it's really only here in the US that there's any substantial population of Christian fundamentallists pushing the false (and stupid) idea that evolution is incompatible with God. Pushing the false (and stupid) idea that evolution equals atheism. It's mindboggling that you go so far off the deep end that you not merely reject the majority of Christians that accept evolution, but that you actually FILTER THEM OUT OF EXISTANCE in your perception of reality.
(1) The majority of Christians accept evolution.
(2) To a rough approximation, zero percent of evolution supporters are atheists.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Again, care to point out how I'm wrong instead of vaguely insulting my intelligence?
Le français vous intéresse?
"I'm also quite content with being the descendant of chimps."
If you know anything about the subject, you will know that humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"My college chemistry professor also said the same thing. He said that evolution appears to violate the law of entropy."
There are instances of appearance movement from disorder to order all the time, such as ocean water drying into nice salt crystals. But perhaps the problem here is in trying to apply the measurement of "ordered" vs "disordered" to something where it might not even apply (or we have no idea how it applies) such as the taxonomy of life forms. There can be quite a subjective call here:
What do you call more "ordered": a situation where there are a few species of single-celled organisms, or a situation where you have a wide variety of multi-celled organisms?
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Ha ha, you fell for the fake "Bush Mars mission" designed to get science believers to quiet down their skepticism about Bush Sr in an election year. Bush Sr pulled the same thing, but Americans weren't as gullible then"
Rather than wonder what Bush Sr did compared to Bush Sr, I realized that there really is no Bush Sr. Because the Bush's actually have different middle names, neither one is Sr or Jr to the other.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Er, that would be "Bushes", not "Bush's".
Besides, I'm not interested in trivia that forces me to dignify either Bush. If ever there was a "close enough" moron, it's Bush Jr. And the "Jr" is descriptive in much more than their names.
--
make install -not war
What's wrong with the tried-and-true "Wimp and Chimp"?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Since you were wrong to the point of purposely ignoring facts in almost every line of your original post and since I've dealt with "you" so many times I feel no need to go through the exercise again, no.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I like to reinforce the image of the tyrannical Bush Dynasty. Americans got rid of the first one relatively quickly. And we've got Tom Kean Jr running for senator in NJ, while his father makes the TV rounds pimping his book where he finally admits he let Republicans off easy on his 9/11 Commission. Nepotism is part of the Republican attack on America and "Jr/Sr" is a quick, easy reference to it. But "Wimp and Chimp" certainly have their place.
--
make install -not war
Well, http://www.google.com/search?q=define:science and http://www.google.com/search?q=define:religion generally match what I expect those words to mean:
Which leads to:
It is provably not "objective truth" to say all religions are ignorant superstition. Antagonistically overstepping the limits of science is logically and ethically a bad idea.
Science is limited by the observability of phenomena - people are capanble of seeing God, but no one's been capable of measuring things that relate directly to God, only to other measurable phenomena that may have other explanations - hence the existence of God is falsifiable from science, and not a testable hypothesis.
Of course, though, science and measurable phenomena aren't everything - one of the reasons why a "God of the gaps" is pointless. People don't start out knowing what the want in life, or what good and evil are, or what they should do with their lives, and science (and engineering) have nothing to say about these - they can tell people good ways to achieve their goals, but not what those goals should be. Science and related fields do not deal with all that is, only all that can be measured. People turn to God (or other beliefs) because there are other parts of the world and themselves that they need to understand.
Science has good reason to be Godless - but that does not require or imply that the rest of life should be.
I was seriously disappointed when I read the chart showing the countries in order from highest number of believers to lowest.
It doesn't show any (save Latvia and Lithuania) former Soviet republics, China, or Korea.
I'm pretty sure that the information from the countries left out is vital in seeing how the world views evolution.
Reading your post history, I'd guess that you didn't read my post clearly enough and that you think I was defending creationism. Absolutely not. My post is a point-by-point rebuttal of the ridiculous arguments made by the parent poster. Unfortunately, a formatting mistake made it look like they were all my words.
Le français vous intéresse?
I swear, as this administration keeps its stranglehold on science its like reading of the Empire's decay in the first Foundation novel. And these restrictions are completely arbitrary, they support a couple dozen lines of embryonic stem cells(which have been confirmed to have been handled with unclean equipment, so they're contaminated), but after a very arbitrary deadline it suddenly became an amoral practice. Yeah, let's not use the embryos for scientific advancement, that's moral decay. Let's just throw them out with the rest of the medical waste, like God intended.
"I can no longer conduct services in praise of the angry, petulant old man in whom you believe. You have turned your back on the God of Love and Compassion, and invented for yourselves a cruel, senile delinquent who blames the world for his own faults."
The mp3/discussion is not about any of the chemicals themselves.
The simple fact that DNA represents something OTHER than itself, proves that a mind had to exist before DNA.
Nothing in nature/chaos represents something other than itself.
You can not find a language that came into existence without a mind.
DNA is a language, The chemicals represent something other than 'adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine'.
The chemicals/letters come together to form 'words', and the words form 'sentences/paragraphs, etc', ALL symbolically representing something other than itself.
Its scientific method in its simplest form, you could say that energy is created in some specific situation, and I'd say, "show me some examples of energy being created".
Well, in this situation, you have all of science, all of the universe, and you only have to come up with one example. "Show me something that symbolically represents something other than itself, that is a result of a pattern and not a design".
Since you are raising my blood pressure (mostly due to the fact that you think I'm against evolution) I will have to direct you to wiki readings that may further your understanding of the issues at hand. Instead of pretending that you are in a position to judge my remarks, please educate yourself a little more on the issue and try to use your imagination. What you said about the "simulation" really gave it away.
A single animal cell evolved into an eye? Really? Do you know what mitosis is? Do you understand the difference between sexual and asexual reproduction, in terms of genetics alone (no mutation of genes involved)? I am not trying to offend you, but this time your remarks are funny. I didn't know eyes could reproduce. Or are you saying that an organism that sexually reproduces had a single cell that turned into an eye over 7000 life-cycles? I'm afraid I have wasted my time.
Now I may be inccurate in my usage of a term but you are wrong about everything. You are wrongabout the main driving force behind evolution(2nd paragraph), you are wrong about the probability of arbitrary mutation of genes being successful(3rd paragraph), and you are limiting your imagination to what you usually hear discussed in terms of looking for genes passed-down, rather than looking for how they came to be in the first place.
What's really driving me mad is that you seem quite intelligent, intelligent enough to understand that not so much as 1% difference in a species' DNA can be achieved by either mitosis or meiosis processes, without mutation. You have even said it yourself.
You start of with rats, you only get rats. You may get different rats, bigger rats(with limits), differently colored rats(with limits), rats with longer legs; but you will never change phyla, let alone species. You can *never* get a donkey from interbreeding of horses without the occurance of a mutation. You can *never* get a sparrow from the interbreeding of different eagles, unless mutations occur. And of course I am using the concept of time in this. It is a favorite among blind darwinists, but to anyone with a remote understanding of biology, physics and probability, it makes no real difference. Meiosis happens in a very well defined process that can (as opposed to arbitrary mutation) be written down in code and simulated, even though it contains elements of randomness (this is why you cannot determine your "unique" genes beforehand). It doesn't matter if you simulate for eternity the life-cycles of an organism..some things are possible and some things aren't.
I am rather dissapointed that I will not be able to discuss with you more involved issues, because you cannot see even the elementary ones. I am always ready to learn and adapt, for in the end I know nothing.
I hope you see where you went wrong.
-A
Thomas Friedman wrote an entire book describing his belief that The World is Flat.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
"Are we not men?"
Why yes of course, some of us are anyway, or more precisely some of us are indeed males of the species homo-sapien. This does not mean any of us male, female or otherwise are the final product in the evolution of our species.
"I hate Liberals and Conservatives."
Ahh grasshopper, be forewarned, standing in the middle of the road is a good way to become road kill.
"If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then FUCK YOU!"
Do you really think rather crude and foul displays of your loathing are in any way helpful in convincing anyone that your views are correct? Do you really think those you seek to demean give a rats ass what you think?
"Courage."
Really to do what? Be brash and obnoxious? This is hardly a display of courage.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say its all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
I have been always very interested about the similarities between Turkish people and Americans.. they are more likely brothers or sisters.. I have never seen such another country except Turkey and the USA with so much heroism, flags, anthoms etc.. and it is not shocking that they are the leats in believing the truth of science.. because they also have similar presidents-Tayyip and Bush.. therefore Turkish people and Americans.. ps. maybe that's why they love each other very much...
what a pity, we are in 21th century and still arguing about whether evolution is a lie or not! I recommend a thousands of books which shows the logical explanation of your human being wery well rather than 2-3 we call "holy" books..
"Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."
It is the most likely theory. I am pretty sure, but completely sure?
No, I am not completely sure.
This is something that could never be tested with the scientific method, and it would take millenia to observe it over time.
I would say that the logical answer is not sure.
OTOH, those who interpret the Bible as being litterally true are.... well, I think it is insulting to Christians to refer to them as Christians. $DEITY help them.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
thank you for your very precious efforts in the name of enligthening me.. if you do believe something 'more', it does not change the scientific truths. i say scientific truths, but i actually mean the science which is not biased.. i read books about ufos and other aliens to which many people believe as the origin of the humanity and they prove it somehow. does it mean they believe something 'more' or something 'nonsense'? and you say that for the evolution we need more time than we had so far.. but i remind you that evolution changes by the species, and the time needed for the evolution is also changeable, i guess again more than you could count but enough for the age of our universe.. if i have to cut short, be careful about not being biased while trying to be democratic to understand both sides...