Slashdot Mirror
The Chicken May Have Come Before the Egg
Muondecay writes "The age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, has been tentatively answered. The verdict? The chicken, or rather a key protein needed to form the shell of the egg. The protein, called ovocledidin-17, was known to be involved in binding calcite molecules that formed the shells, but the mechanism behind this was unclear until now. The protein acts as a molecular machine, binding to nanoparticles of calcite and guiding them to begin self-assembly of the shell. This gives tremendous insight for developing methods of nano-scale self-assembly based on natural processes, as well as settling heated cocktail party arguments everywhere."
Once again, the Bible was right.
No it wasn't. It got three events in roughly the right historical order (although actually most modern animals evolved a long time after all three had been created), if you look at it a certain way. In a book over a thousand pages long that is not impressive at all. Now I would be impressed by the biblical creation stories if god has spent the previous three weeks creating strange single celled creatures and burying fake skeletons to trick us into believing evolution. I still wouldn't believe it though.
Personally, I don't find this "evidence" to be particularly compeling, but then I'm no longer the blind faith in science type. Science will never prove anything conclusively because it's a game where they continually move the goal posts.
How can you have blind faith in science? The point of science is that it can be proven wrong and therefore does not require any faith. Wanting definite answers is something I can certainly sympathise with but choosing the Bible over science is not choosing the definite over the uncertain. It is choosing something which has already been proven wrong over something which has not been proven wrong yet.
The Bible (...) is a solid truth...
AHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, thanks I needed a good laugh this morning.
Seriously, stop reading apologist crap and pick up a real science book (or go to talkorigins.org). At best, if you read things very figuratively and very generously, a few small parts of the Bible end up being close enough to be recognizable (and the rest tends to be laughable wrong, or things that we haven't found even a single shred of evidence for, like Egypt holding Jews captive).
Really, science, by definition, is about a continual refinement of knowledge based upon new evidence and observations. It is the result of countless curious minds saying "Huh, that's funny...", coming up with a consistent explanation, and testing that. The worst you could say about science is that it assumes that we all exist in a shared, objective experience. That's the only thing science takes "on faith".
A lot can be said about faith, but it is not something that many people honestly test. There's no evidence to be found or observations to be made. Many different belief systems claim that things have been revealed to them, yet not one can point to something that the other can't. Either there is/are deities (who lie all the time), or humans are wrong. In the absence of any evidence for the existence of gods, and a large body of evidence to support the idea that humans screw things up, I have to go with what I have evidence for.