Slashdot Mirror
Fundamentalist Schools Using "Nessie" To Disprove Evolution
The debate between creationists and proponents of evolution isn't ending any time soon, but now some creationists have a secret weapon, "Nessie!"
Certain fundamentalist schools in Louisiana plan to teach children that the Loch Ness monster is real in a bid to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. From the article: "One ACE textbook – Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc – reads: 'Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the "Loch Ness Monster" in Scotland? "Nessie" for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.' Another claim taught is that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur. It's unclear if the movie Godzilla was the inspiration for this lesson."
Just asking....
Finding a live dinosaur does not in any way disprove evolution. It would simply mean that some very few dinosaurs lived through the extinction event. These Christians really need to take a class in evolution. That way they would know what they need to disprove.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
If dinosaurs were still alive, this still wouldn't disprove the theory of evolution. News at 11.
And what the heck is the article about, please?
"The debate between creationists and proponents of evolution"? What is that? As far as I know, biologists continue to work in their field successfully despite the "lie of Darwinism."
Please. It's more like "the attack on evolutionary theory and its teaching by those with religious and political objections" isn't going away anytime soon.
Then why are there still Bigfoots around?
Religion: 1
Science: 0
I think the Lousiana schools are ignoring important documentary footage of the family of Nessie from the 80s, as described here.
OK seriously, if they are teaching that Nessie is real, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? And how about all the other urban legends, such as the Jersey Devil, Flying Saucers/Roswell, Bigfoot, Yeti, Dragons, Unicorns, Mermaids, Hobgoblins, and Trolls?
Yes, I know that Trolls are real, we feed them all the time on Slashdot.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
from this site, the answer to the question, based on this article, is yes. We are failing. Miserably.
When we continue to try and refute or attempt to disprove a scientific fact simply because our mythological beliefs conflict with the facts, we are failing.
If they really wanted to try and "refute" evolution, they would have used the coelecanth as evidence of a dinosaur we once thought was extinct but which is happily living on in our time.
But then, evolution says nothing about whether an animal can exist for millions of years, so there's still nothing to refute.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
...to point out that there is a vast difference between a "scientist" and a "Christian scientist".
Nessie has never been confirmed to exist. They should instead use Gumby to disprove evolution. At least he is real.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
It's been claimed that birds are pretty much the direct descendants of dinosaurs.
Sorry, no URL.
-PM
How does this text book author sleep at night?
This reasoning fails in at least three fundamental ways.
First, the Loch Ness Monster simply doesn't exist. No reputable scientist would claim that it does, or even that it could exist in the way that it is commonly portrayed.
Second, it's not even necessary for dinosaurs to still exist to support their argument. There are already well-known animals alive today that have been virtually unchanged since the dinosaur times. Alligators and crocodiles are the best examples I can think of, off the top of my head.
Third, as the existence of alligators shows, even if dinosaurs did still exist, that doesn't in any possible way "disprove" the Theory of Evolution. I'm not entirely certain what reasoning would have to apply so that their existence would matter at all.
Really, this mostly just goes to show that any "debate" on the topic is fruitless when one side thinks that an argument like this completely invalidates proven scientific fact. How can you argue against that?
I thought dinosaurs didn't exist because the earth was only 6K years old. But now they do, because it somehow disproves evolution?
Next we'll be told the universe exploded into existence from a singularity. Oh, wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
;)
"They are the only living animals that have a skull but not a vertebral column. Along with lampreys, hagfish are jawless and are living fossils; hagfish are basal to vertebrates, and living hagfish remain similar to hagfish 300 million years ago"
Then there is our friend Coelacanth :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
and I pass many others which did not evolve much since those time.
Creationist don't do such things to convince others anyway, but rather to make their own rank solid.
anyway : http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D&feature=plcp
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
But, I really want to read more into the lack of logic behind the "tenet ... that if it can be proved that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as man then Darwinism is fatally flawed." At least these arguments are getting more desperate, I call that progress.
Source looks to be a scottish tabloid running an empty "hurr them yanks sure is dumb" story.
Scotsmen are welcome to correct me if this is a well-respected newspaper in their country. But it sure looks like nonsense.
If it's based on anything, it's based on some fringe crackpot books for homeschooled kids.
Hands up if you went to a public, private or catholic school that taught you Nessie was real and the Ku Klux Klan is a great force for good.
<IrishAccent> No please, this will be the end of me! People will believe fairy tales, follow rainbows to the source and discover me LUCKY CHARMS!
What, didn't you know leprechauns make their money producing cereal? How do you think we get pots of gold!
If a Japanese whaling vessel caught a dinosaur, I would expect Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherds to have video.
sudo make me a sandwich
Never fails, call someone stupid - make an ass of yourself in the process.
Breathe, thats b.r.e.a.t.h.e.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
That quote doesn't seem to be saying anything about evolution at all. It is just asking the question "Are dinosaurs alive today?"
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Global warming is a hoax because my freezer houses a chunk of ice that has GROWN over the past 10 years. So there.
Teach one lie with another? What's next, classes on how to hunt haggis?
In any case, the children who attended these schools can say goodbye to ever being accepted into a university without some serious remedial studies, like a full on associates degree. Even then, I doubt any of them will be getting into MIT or CMU any time soon.
Great Intellect...
I find it particularly hard to imagine how useless huge heavy tail and colors that cry "eat me" when miles away could survive for so long.
I was watching Dinosaurs or Dragons for laughs Saturday morning and there was a part where the Christians actually have the hubris to claim that Carl Sagan's The Dragons Of Eden was scientific proof that dinosaurs existed with man 6000 years ago. Talk about serious WTFs, wife & I were quite chilled and had to turn off the flick as it was way too disturbing.
Those people ought to be ashamed of themselves.
The views expressed by "Accelerated Christian Education Inc" in no way reflect the views of all Christians. You might think we are crazy, but many Christians think evolution is perfectly valid. More importantly, while God may have created the Earth over a six day period, we are open to the possibility of the creation story playing out over a much larger timeframe.
I will point out that evolution is a really really bad theory for explaining the transition from nothingness to human life, but that doesn't mean life on Earth does not evolve.
More Jobs for China....
I think their line of "reasoning" here is probably similar to the "argument" that "if humans evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps around?"
They're trying to go "Look, dinosaurs still exist! So how could anything new have evolved since them if they're still around, eh?"
It's a failure to realize that evolution is a branching of the tree of life, not the creep of one single vine of life or something.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Hopefully some kid in one of those wing-nut schools (which are absolutely not representative of American education) will raise their hand and ask:
"Um...how can we find a static shipwreck on the floor of the vast North Atlantic, 12,000 ft underwater, but we can't find a huge moving sea monster in a lake with less than 2 cu mi volume, less than 450 ft average depth?"
And hopefully their teacher actually thinks about the question.
Lake Tahoe, which has 20 times the volume of Loch Ness, marketed a "Tessie" monster for a while. They had cute plush toys, stickers, buttons, a little museum, and all that. But it was just a joke, like Nessie.
The best lessons to teach kids with this, are in gullibility, and tourism marketing.
It can only serve to further discredit the people who peddle this pseudo-scientific nonsense.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I'd agree with your "don't lump all christians in with this lot" statement. Most of my friends and family are Christians, and they are perfectly nice, well-adjusted people, and I don't make a habit of going around arguing with people.
However, please do not try to set up an equivalence between belief in the existence of God and belief in evolution. Christians cannot provide direct proof of the existence of God. They cannot even provide any compelling evidence, except maybe some philosophical thought experiments that pretty much break down when one simply asks, "are there any other alternatives that could explain this?". Evolution, on the other hand, has vast libraries of direct observations, repeatable experiments, and scientifically testable outcomes that support it. There's a huge difference.
Look, I don't have a problem with Christians. If I did, living in the Bible Belt South, I literally wouldn't be able to talk to hardly anyone. You believe things on faith, I get that, and honestly, as far as religions go, it's got some good parts to it that I respect. But please, just admit it and be at peace with it, don't try to either 1) build up your beliefs with misguided scientific "proof" of things that cannot be proven, or 2) tear down bodies of scientific proof for things that can.
I guess it's a step up from the "no evidence" approach. At least they acknowledge the idea that facts have some significance when making claims about the world.
From 2nd grade to 12th grade, my primary curriculum was based on the "PACE" system. The way PACE works is, each subject (math, science, etc) is broken down into individual sub-subjects called a "PACE." Each PACE has reading sections, exercises, and a final test, all of which cover a very specific topic. I clearly remember that my one of my PACE physics books (devoted to gases) used the second law of thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution. The "evidence against evolution" was even on the test at the end of the PACE. I also remember one of my early science PACE books covering the "hydrosphere" -- a sphere of frozen hydrogen which covered the Earth in ancient times -- which supposedly collapsed during Noah's flood. Despite some of these quirks, the PACE system was actually pretty solid. The explanations, questions, etc, were all very well structured. Honestly, looking at some of my niece's/nephew's course work in my local public school system, the PACE system was bread-and-butter by comparison.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
"I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
Isn't it more likely that the Dinosaur would catch the Japanese whaling vessel.
'thats'? Touche!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
"That's impossible, trolls aren't real."
A better argument would be "Then how do you explain Slashdot".
All the current, known "living fossils" can be traced through fossils in multiple sediment layers. Logically, because they were alive during the years those sediment layers were laid down.
But that contradicts their "theory" that the sediment layers all formed during the same period (the "Flood").
So if they can find a single species that still exists but where the only fossils are in a specific sediment layer then it must "prove" that the Biblical account of Noah and The Flood is correct and evolution is wrong because "God did it".
That is because it would "disprove" the scientific theory (despite all supporting evidence) that the sediment layers formed over hundred of millions of years. Because they were all laid down within several weeks.
And , therefore, evolution is a lie. God did it.
Rodents of unusual size? I don't think they exist.
My kingdom for a donkey!
I just feel sorry mostly for the kids in these classes who realize that things don't add up and that they're being duped, but realize they have to go along and nod their head and give the right answers to make it through these classes if they are going to have a chance in hell of getting into college.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
I never thought that pseudo-science could be used to disprove real science! Brilliant!
Creationists are fond of citing *movies* to support their arguments.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
To the editors - surely you can automate a spamcatcher for this type of spam, and automatically kill it?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
For once, my home state of Georgia looks positively enlightened by comparison.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Loch Ness Monster isn't the only Dinosaur myth in recent times... Canada's Lake Okanagan is possessively home to a similar mystical beast...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogopogo
In any case, there is no proving nor disproving any of it as faith tends to conquer all levels of rational judgement. Best we can hope for is a better edumacated tomorrah. /cowboyneal-twang
This might actually be their most convincing argument yet. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, where mutations make a species smarter, stronger, better able to survive. Therefore, I find it very hard to believe that these creationists evolved from Chimps, which are clearly a much more intelligent species.
Alternative explanations include that they are an example of convergent evolution; they evolved from sea slugs and just happen to look like intelligent people, which is unlikely; some type of regressive evolution, where lowered intelligence marked a split from homo sapiens, even below the levels of homo saywattus wattus, which also seems unlikely. IANNAB (biologist) so I don't have any more alternative theories. Someone please help me resolve this dilemma!
Never mind that for Nessie to have survived, a breeding population would have to have survived under that last several hundred ice ages, and the glaciation events that created the loch itself.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
At what point does this cross the line between religious freedom and child abuse?
I'm all for protecting the rights of a citizen, but we do act in the cases of faith healing; this is almost as severe an abuse of authority. If we feel compelled to act in faith healing cases, this should be considered fair game as well.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Touche? You mean Touché.
and
"Proof" only exists in mathematics.
For the other branches of science, there are theories, predictions, experiments and observations.
So far, all the evidence does point to a "primordial soup of random chemicals".
Now, you can claim that "God" put those specific chemicals in that specific soup ... and also "designed" all the apparently random interactions since then ... resulting in such things as "intelligently designed hemorrhoids" ... but those are your claims.
Claiming that science cannot "prove" that your unfalsifiable claims are false ... do you see the problem with your logic there?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
We're probably in phase 3... so what's the ETA on winning? Is there a pool going?
Only a Moron would believe any of this garbage. What is the litmus test to teach this nonsense?
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
We call them birds. How does that disprove evolution?
You know, the world's twelve-thousand years old, and dinosaurs existed in that time, you'd think it would've been mentioned in the fucking bible at some point. "And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking... 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord.' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus' paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord."
- Bill Hicks
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Because Genesis 1:21 says that God created the sea-monsters tannin, and everyone translator since Luther has tried to translate that word as whale/fish/dragon/waterspout/crocodile/greatSeaCreature or anything else other than the plain meaning of sea monster. Obviously now they have decided to embrace the sea monster and equate it with plesiosaur, instead of reading the text as it plainly is - a polemic against all foreign gods whether they are the sun, moon, stars, monsters, darkness, chaos, weather, fertility.
'I thought I told you woman never to give the Loch ness Monster no 2&50.'
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
Like everything else they tell you in school is true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf5Jn8O3s0c
But you are not entitled to your own facts. And passing off your opinion as fact means you are a fraud. These "science" classes and "science" teachers are frauds in the worst sense of the word.
This is deliberately mentally poisoning children with nonsense so they cannot get accepted into any decent college or university.
This is child abuse. It is as much child abuse as hitting a kid with your fist. Except it's done to the brain.
--
BMO
This blows fuzzy shots of Nessie out the water...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCL4dXUtblg
They get government money. (better spent on people with brains or the millions of poor people in the US)
AccountKiller
I have to look no further than my state legislature to know the answer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...ever, killed someone.
Following your logic that "Lack of proof for a positive = proof of a negative", the lack of proof of you never killing anyone, proves that you are a murder.
Now, let's talk about the fact of there being no prof that you are not a pedophile.
but that the negative is the only rational answer currently possible without guessing
That's still false dichotomy.
Look at the curriculum at any parochial school, any religion, and you'll see courses and textbooks that are unscientific. Nothing special about this one, except it's that this is an election year so it gets called out by the Slashdot editors.
It would need some pretty extreme and tightly-focussed selective pressures, and your professor would no longer be a housecat, but yes. Two million years ago homo habilis already had a brain half the size of modern humans and were using crude stone tools, at the same time homo erectus had a brain about 75% the size of ours and there's evidence they were using fire and complex tools. already had were already using tools. Modern humans may be descended from one or both (or neither) sub-species - it's really hard to say anything conclusively about that, but the general consensus is that most of the various human sub-species went extinct without interbreeding significantly with the line that lead to modern humans.
Look, evolution is that complicated - we use guided evolution all the time, it's called agriculture and animal husbandry. Take a look at a Golden Retriever, a Great Dane, and a Chihuahua - all of them are descended from animals very much like modern wolves, and are still closely enough related to allow interbreeding. But they're obviously very different animals from each other and the canines they descended from, shaped by generations of selective breeding to posses characteristics we decided were desirable. All evolution is saying is that the same thing happens in the wild - but instead of people intentionally breeding for specific characteristics it's a matter of those characteristics helping individuals survive or reproduce better than their peers. The effect is the same, it just takes longer, and is unlikely to lead to any particular outcome (like humans).
Given that - sure, if we really wanted a housecat-descended math professor in a million years it probably wouldn't be hard to do at all - they breed quickly so it might not even take that long. Just start a controlled breeding program where each generation of the source population is tested for intelligence, problem-solving ability, and paw dexterity (we want our professor to be able to use a pen after all). Only allow those that test in the top 5% or so of their generation to breed, and the top 5% of the next generation will almost certainly be at least as smart and dexterous as their parents, and the occasional lucky mutation or gene combination will mean some individuals do notably better. Sure, you'll have some pretty severe inbreeding problems, but as long as general health and durability are factored into the selection criteria the damaging recessive genes will quickly be bred out out of the population. If you want to speed things up subject your population to moderate levels of radiation or other mutagens to increase the speed at which random noise adds new "features" to the population's genetic palette, just don't push too hard or the negative "features" (which will be most of them) will overwhelm the population and drive them extinct.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
These people are about as credible as a scientist trying to prove evolution by searching for the Sasquatch.
Hey fundies, in BC there's supposed to be a sea monster in Okanagan Lake called Ogopogo. Double your chances to prove yourself right, and spend some tourism dollars. The wineries are great.
Don't anthropomorphize natural processes. They hate it when you do that.
Seriously, "evolution" is a descriptive term for what results when you have a certain combination of features in a system (basically, a mechanism for replicating traits, a mechanism or combination of mechanisms that produces random changes in traits as they are replicated, and an environment which creates pressures which affect which traits are replicated.)
I love it, never fails.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
It’s difficult to be logical about something that’s so illogical.
Suppose Nessie was real.
Then either she’s an entirely new species of unknown lineage, or she’s an evolved plesiosaur. Her existence would enthrall paleontologists. However it doesn’t disprove Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is scientific fact. It’s been scientific fact for about 150 years. That boat sailed a long time ago.
The Free Exercise Clause ensures creationists can argue their beliefs. The Establishment Clause ensures they can’t masquerade their religious beliefs as pseudoscience in publicly funded schools.
Louisiana seceded once. She lost. If she secedes from science, she’ll lose again.
HRH The Duke of Windsor
I was going to include the "Two Ton 21" rant about Ogopogo, but that would just be silly.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Science is about following the evidence wherever it leads, at present evidence suggests abiogenesis. Evolution shows us a mechanism allowing all present life to be traced back to very early primitive forms, and the mechanism itself would continue to operate all the way back even on relatively simple self-replicating molecules that could have formed in the rich soup of organic molecules almost certainly that covered the early planet.
Certainly the ultimate origin of life question is still open, but there are really only two possibilities - either it arose spontaneously, or some uncreated being stepped in to started things off. So really the question becomes which is the more reasonable assumption - that a being more intelligent and powerful than humans "just happened" into existence and decided to create life, or that somewhere in that massive sea of organic molecules, at some time in the hundreds of millions of years that it existed, a few simpler molecules bumped into each in just the right way to create a more complex molecule capable of imperfect self-replication? One assumption involves a great unknowable, the other involves a probability close to zero multiplied by two quantities very near infinity. If I were a betting man I know where I'd put my money.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This is good because we will always need people to do the menial jobs in our society.
You know, "Would you like fries with that Sir?" and of course the ever popular "Welcome to Walmart"
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I saw this article was I was at work, and since I usually don't log in there, this comment will probably be lost in the sea of outrage, but...
Back when I was in high school, I took a semister of debate, and I forget the exact proposition, but it had to do with improving school systems. My partner and I ran a pretty air-tight voucher proposition, and since I actually believed in my proposition, I've tended to use similar points in meat-space discussions about the school systems that have come up since then. Of course, never ventured outside of my room back then except to go to school and my partner didn't have much ambition, either, so we never actually competed and I may never know how air tight or not it actually was, but I digress.
I think this article has shown me for the first time some solid evidence why a voucher system could fail. If I were doing negative against my old proposition, all I would have needed to do were jump forward in time to Slashdot in 2012 where I could read about how parents really, really want their kids to fail in the global marketplace just so that their kids won't get eaten by the devil.
Jeebus, the implications are frightening. I've seen how a few choice quotes from the Bible with some wiles (that I suppose this Satan guy might be impressed by) can turn an otherwise intelligent and rational man into a racist homophobe (my ex-father), but just holy shit. Claiming that the Loch Ness monster is real? Please say it ain't so and the article is doing some strawmanning of its own!
Although, I can see it. And that's the problem.
One thing that conservatives or at least "internet tough guys" like to rail against is the idea of relative values. Relative values is, on its surface, the idea that different cultures are all just as valid, which can degrade into arguing that opinions are just as real as facts.
However, it's become apparent to me that conservatives have their own notion of relative values, and they have their own opinions and facts. Except, unlike with its liberal counterpart, the conservative relative values argument starts with the axiom (yes, axiom, not assumption, because an assumption can be refuted) that god exists and that the Bible is fundamentally influenced by him and is intended to be his message to the world.
Therefore, if I conclude that the Loch Ness monster must exist based on some theological contortion, then my opinion has just as much privelege as the complete lack of evidence that Nessie exists. If I decide that blacks should be slaves because of part of Noah's story, then my opinion has just as much privelege as any argument that blacks are just as capable as whites. Q. E. D.
It's really mind-blowing. I work around a lot of people who do not have a basic grasp of maths, geography, reading, or writing. Therefore, to these people, science is just as much mysticism and hand-waving as religion. To these people, science is a religion. And from the temples of science come computers, which are sufficiently advanced technology. That's right! To these people, computers are indistinguishable from magic. Just a very kind of wonky and klunky magic, but I'm beginning to believe that they are serious when they call me a wizard. The fact that I'm obviously LGBT and obviously not a good ol' boy probably drives that superstition home.
It's sad and pathetic, and I don't know what the answer is. I have trouble understanding how I could possibly be the same species as what are essentially hairless apes that wear clothes and can talk. If there were an answer, I suppose that it could only be that perhaps people of all races and genders who really want to live in the real world instead of some medieval fairy story and want to progress their technology to the point where scarcity has been eliminated (at least for them) need to get together and stop contributing our taxes to this madness.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Fat and carbs lacking in protein and essential vitamins and minerals which makes a pretty bad extended diet?
Yeah, I'll buy that.
No, its not.
Religions generally include mythology, but religions (dead or alive) are more than just the body of myth they include, in the same way that (for instance) a a nation's system of government is more than just it electoral system, even though the system of government includes the electoral system.
For instance, religions generally include moral precepts, which -- while they may be illustrated by elements of the mythology, aren't part of the mythology, and can be examined separately.
They also often include institutional authority structures, which again may be justified by reference to the mythology, but which are themselves not part of the body of myth.
So your search-and-replace of "religion" with "mythology" in a post talking about what can be learned by examining religion doesn't work as a substitution that doesn't change the meaning, as you claim. Instead, it radically changes the meaning.
Well, yeah. Mythology is often part of a religion (though it can be outside of a religion in the usual sense -- there is a lot of US national mythology that doesn't really have a religious context.)
That doesn't make mythology the same as religion.
Can't breathe if you cant take a breath, right?
Learn to love Alaska
"There was a time when people did not believe rocks could fall from the sky. It was silly to believe that rocks could fall from the sky, common sense told you that that was silly. Then we came to understand where meteors could come from and proved it. Does this mean that there were no meteors until it was proved?"
No, it means we did not know what meteors were, and anyone claiming they fell from the sky held the burden of proof, just like the people of the time claiming they were thrown at sinful mortals by angry gods. Now we know what was going on. It is working as intended. Your point?
Great Intellect...
Assuming Nessie to be real and assuming proof of it’s existence to be available, I find it would be quite improbable anyone could use such proof as a basis of an argument to refute evolution. It would only mean that since the alleged Nessie has been in a more or less isolated environment, it has had no stimulus that could favour an evolutionary change. By the same token, there are creatures alive today that have remained with little or no perceptible change since the days of the dinosaurs (All reptiles obviously). I see this as just another desperate attempt by people that lack the courage to live life accepting responsibility.
So long as it's a 21 gun salute to the face. :)
To the really stupid and violent out there, not literally, but I still hate spammers and spam trolls.
That makes them sound like they just have a opinion.
Evolution stopped being a theory many many decades ago.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
This is a great idea, teach their kids to be stupid so that the rest of the children can blow them out of the water in the future, and propagate the truth as they reproduce. Meanwhile the stupid kids gene line will slowly die out.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There is no such thing as evolution, just look at these people.
Yes, and I have the perfect solution! If it mentions the word "MyCleanPC" more than 10 times, the spam catcher will cunningly detect this with a word count algorithm. I wonder if this could be 'cleaned' up with the technology of today. I think the amount of my RAM is up to the job. Then My Slashdot will remain Clean of PC spam such as this.
This thing is like a virus that needs to be eliminated. Anything like a PC virus needs cleaning up. My own PC has a virus checker, so I'm sure it's simple for the mods to clean their own PCs up to save MY sanity. Also, we can clean our own PCs with my own clean PC. My clean PC is wonderful for all your needs and can cure your own problems in milliseconds! MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Why don't they just use a Croc if they want something that looks like a dinosaur and is from way back in the fossil record (crocs have been around for quite a few million years). Oh that's right, they don't trust this Science thing and don't get that Mendel could be a pious monk yet still show that life changes over time.
This creationism shit isn't just about misunderstanding science, it's also about misunderstanding theology (according to a prominent and convincing Jesuit that I can't recall the name of).
Moderate Christians like myself, who see no conflict between Christianity and science, and moderate atheists I know, who have nothing against religion and are simply unconvinced by the evidence for theism, get lumped in with the fundamentalists and their arguments and questions summarily dismissed by both sides.
Hmm, let's look at what you believe, shall we?
Christian fundamentalists, stop going full retard and cherry picking what science you like. Scripture deals with the things we could not figure out by ourselves, like the Trinity. Science rests its presupositions on Christian philosophy, that the universe is orderly, understandable, and can be understood mathematically. Remember the words of Robert Boyle, “From a knowledge of God's work we shall know Him.”
No, that is not a "Christian" philosophy. You can trace the direct roots back the pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales. Try again.You are correct about the Trinity, though. Without the vague account of the Trinity in Scripture(and the church councils which actually defined the belief, and the murder of "heretics" who disagreed with the definition, and the schisms that last until today which rest on this definition[filique]), the world might have been spared that particular piece of nonsensical gibberish.
Atheists fundamentalists, deal with the fact that the last 50 years of Biology and Paleontology has raised legitimate objections to Darwinian theory that need to be dealt with. The "Monkeys typing Shakespeare Theorem" doesn't cut it and everyone knows it.
I'm afraid not. If you are referring to some strawman "theory of evolution," as evidenced by the fact that you are calling it "Darwinian," then sure. Darwin is not the end all and be all of the theory of evolution. And I can guarantee you that there is no need for any modern biologist to shoehorn your deity into their theoretical framework to provide any sort of explanation(not that some theists don't try to do just that anyway).
It does illustrate nicely how "Moderate Christians" can reconcile their religion and science: just find reasons to denigrate or ignore the parts that you don't like. The difference between that and the Fundamentalists is only a matter of degree.
Hand-waving and just-so stories don't convince either side and, if either side was so sure about their position, would not use them. My time is better spent discussing these things in person where both sides are far more sensible and civil.
Your time would be better spent studying biology before making unfounded statements.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
And deny us the enjoyment of such gems as "the virus ... it cannot be stopped"
I used to be in a fiction writers support group. This story reads like the sort of stuff one of the participants used to bring along. So bad it is funny.
Interesting, your mother thinks I'm special as well.
If you want to spar with me then post with your account, not as an AC. The option to hide as an anonymous user is an option I have as well. However, I stand by my arguments, unlike a puss such as yourself.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
I doubt that a house cat will live to a million years old..
but the real question should be: If it does turn out that a sentient being capable of teaching mathematics at college level does exist in a million years time will it look anything like us.. and why?
Therein lies the answer to many questions.
Meanwhile, the answer is probably 'no'. There is no reason for your average cat, of any size or breed, to need to use tools other than the tools they are naturally equipped with for any purpose. Cats, of all sizes and generally, have a good set of teeth and claws, are fast, agile, can see in the dark, have a fur coat which keeps their personal climate adjusted, have a specific diet which can keep them occupied for a good deal of their time, sleep the rest of the time outside of mating... and where or what in this do you see as the evolutionary nudge for cats to start using tools, needing to start planning and calculating (more than 'where is my next meal coming from') or indeed any other activity required for evolution?
Unless some quite cruel and nasty person builds a very crafty D&D maze with lots of traps, catches, levers, spikes, pits, and other nastiness to similar what humans like to do when they play RPG / FPS games and quite a few cats in the maze to live, learn, breed and die at a high succession rate so that the cats are forced to learn and evolve to survive.. I can't see it happening.
About the only outcome which may have some basis in certainty, outside of the crafty D&D maze, is that the cats you start off with will get bigger, smaller and possibly change coat colour (assuming either humans destroy the environment and the earth or the next iceage comes and goes but either way this planet may boil or freeze..).
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
I don't know if normal people in the US realise quite what a laughing stock their country is to the rest of the world. It's one thing to have god-bothering loonies believing shit like this in the privacy of their own churches, it's quite another to actually have it taught in schools.
Absolutely pathetic.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So Nessie, which has been wildly debated and often debunked as a hoax, is being cited as an argument against evolution? Well, while we're at it, why not use Back To The Future as proof of time travel.
The most simple way to stomp a considerate fundie is ring species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species Irrefutable evidence in favor of evolution, or at least speciation which is just as good.
if we all took the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Even if there were a group of plesiosaurs living in Loch Ness, how would that disprove evolution in any way?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Iran used to be an extremely progressive and modern country. Iran and Iraq were ahead of the United States and Europe in regards to women's equality. If they can backslide as far as they have done, then it is possible for the United States to do so as well. Fundamentalist Christians of this ilk and TEA party Republicans and their anti-woman/anti-contraception/anti-sex rants need to be taken seriously. Pay attention to the news and vote against those people.
....that's clever.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
When one side has mountains of evidences, and accurate predictions, and the other side has 'Nuh-uh', there is no debate.
Even if Nessie was real, it would in no way imply evolution isn't a fact; which it is.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" the last 50 years of Biology and Paleontology has raised legitimate objections to Darwinian theory that need to be dealt with.
Such as..?
no? I didn't think so.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
that still doesn't mean god exists.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well done sir, well done. I am humbled.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Existence of Nessie doesn't disprove evolution. Unfortunately evolution doesn't say Nessie can't exist, just very unlikely. Anyway, if anything evolution tells us dinosaurs still roam the earth today. Or at least their descendants, the birds. So the "OMG Dinosaurs disprove evolution" is a bunch of non-sense..
Just wait until they find out that the different sonar ratings actually mean there's a whole family of sea monsters in the loch and thanks to evolutionary fitness, they've been able to reproduce for generations AND cleverly avoid capture since prehistoric times.
Using one great piece of fiction to justify another even more astonishing piece of fiction....absolutely AMAZING.
That anyone would teach their kids such garbage is appalling....but then that's what Sunday Schools and madrassas do all over the world....Just different garbage.
Only boring people are ever bored.
The cladists have won. Birds are dinosaurs. Willful ignorance is unforgivable. Creationists keep their kids in a fact and logic-free bubble long enough for them to breed.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
You Americans are very funny. This does seem to be an exclusively USA issue. I have not encountered it during my many travels throughout Europe, Asia, or where I live in Australia. No doubt there are some small pockets where evangelising missionaries from the fundamentalist American Protestant sects have managed to scare a few unsophisticated people into these extreme creationist beliefs, but I have not yet seen any evidence of this. Why is this so? Given the percentage of the US population that is supposed to believe this nonsense, there must be an explanation relating to the environment of your country. Perhaps it is a reflection on your decrepit education system, rooted in conservative state governments. It seems to me that it is more likely that the number of simple-minded Christians is so large in the USA, and the system of government is so open to "respecting" the beliefs of everyone, that these deniers of the most wonderful and productive branch of science in the last 200 years have to be comforted. My own theory is that this is really about fear. Genesis, in all its innocent antediluvian ignorance, is necessary to support a belief in eternal damnation and salvation, and hence in the need for a Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. These people sincerely believe that they will suffer in agony for eternity unless they hold to a belief in this salvation. This is very effective mind control, and it is reinforced by learned pastors who they hold in high esteem. We won't change that by more demonstrations of the power of genetics. Unprogramming these suckers is going to be extremely difficult because they are very afraid, and are immune to reason. Should we bother with them? They are really only a harmless and fascinating anacronism that reminds us of the horrors of medieval Christianity, and perhaps we need such a reminder. Does anyone have any ideas how it could be done? My suggestion is satire. As this thread shows, creationist beliefs can be hilarious, and these are vey insecure people. There is a problem with Poe's Law, because any attempt to parody outspoken creationists will be undone when a true believer who is even funnier opens up, There is the challenge.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
Not really - they could allow one posting a day of this crap, not 3 or 4 in one story. That way, no censoring is happening, they could even allow the repeating posters see their posts, but the rest of us could block it. Or perhaps we could have "spam" blocked entirely, per a keyword or catch phrase we'd like to block. I don't care, it'd just be easier without having to wade through spam crap.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Just another example how religious nutters are out of their minds. It is frightening that that kind people might be involved in deciding launching nuclear weapons...
Some dinosaurs still exist! Therefore No Evolution!
Wait, was that supposed to make sense? The discovery that Coelacanths were not exinct didn't shake anyone's belief in evolution, did it?
It's funny how when sensationalist news articles talk about a Slashdotter's field of expertise, he is often skeptical. And rightly so, since he sees plenty of distortions and general shoddy journalism in popular news sources... when it comes to his field of expertise. But when an obviously sensational news article appears that is about some topic he knows almost nothing about... well! No need to be skeptical there! It must be the absolute truth!
This behavior is even more prevalent when the said news article is about something the Slashdotter hates and is not an expert on.
In short, I think we need to be a bit more skeptical about this supposed news. Here's a different perspective on it: http://tofspot.blogspot.jp/2012/06/fundies-are-coming-fundies-are-coming.html
- Francis Ocoma
Please wait while Sig Request is being processed...