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."

60 of 936 comments (clear)

  1. Was Jesus riding Nessie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just asking....

    1. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just asking....

      No, just cuddling....

      http://cdn.twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/Jesus-and-dinosaur-e1299096274567-634x865.jpg

    2. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by ubergeek65536 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I found proof and I doubt it's a fake since they didn't have photoshop 2000 years ago.

      http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/most-popular/1236-scientists-prove-jesus-walked-with-dinosaurs.html

    3. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, no, the fundamentalists are not trolling, they honestly believe a fairy tale disproves science.

    4. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what I was thinking. If you read the bible, you notice that Jesus and Nessie were never in the same place at the same time. You can't argue with the bible.

    5. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The best possible outcome of all this would be an event to REALLY fuck up EVERYBODY. Specifically, it turns out God IS real, and, out of sheer frustration, comes down to Louisiana, and explains: "No, you stupid, stupid dipshits! What part of that makes ANY sense? I swear, I thought I made you morons with some amount of intelligence, but THAT?!? Look, it's evolution! The answer is evolution! Seriously, it is! I know you idiots can't see it from your perspective, but from where I am, it's really, really fuckin' awesome. I mean, I pick a planet from the random number generator, toss in a bit of genetic material, and in billions of years, civilization happens without me having to hand-hold you little dingbats every step of the way! Seriously, how can you tell me THAT isn't awesome?"

    6. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by LifesABeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cats have multiplication figured out. And when it comes to eating Primates, Cats have subtraction figured out also. Halfway there?

    7. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Speaking of fairy tales:

      Would you areee that in a million years it is possible, via the mechanism of evolution, that a housecat will teach mathematics at a college level.

      I await your response.

      If it's Schrödinger's cat, I'd say "maybe."

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't be silly. Jesus rides a Harley.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    9. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by Ironchew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you areee that in a million years it is possible, via the mechanism of evolution, that a housecat will teach mathematics at a college level.

      I await your response.

      Future descendants of cats may or may not teach mathematics; intelligence is not a directed goal of evolution. Nice try, but your oversimplification didn't win me over to the "goddidit" side.

    10. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by staalmannen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. As long as there would be a selective pressure for such a behavior. There are however some caveats: cats do not have the best "starting material" (like hands) to evolve into something that would benefit from such things (crows on the other hand could be a rather interesting bet...). There are tons of examples of how sub-optimal evolution really is (how our eyes for example evolved from a proto-eye which limited the possible end result, whereas other independently evolved eyes have much better "design") because it builds on a previously existing part (adapted for something else). After writing this answer I realized that I missed pointing out the most obvious: the "housecat" will be long dead when the "university math professor evolved from housecats" exists just like the proto-apes that were the ancestors of us and the other modern apes are long extinct.

    11. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      My favorite part of that picture has always been that the dinosaur still looks like it's super-pissed.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    12. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If god is real, I am pretty sure I don't want to meet him, given all the crap that happened over the course of history in his name. He must be either evil or incompetent.

    13. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Would you areee that in a million years it is possible, via the mechanism of evolution, that a housecat will teach mathematics at a college level.

      No, but he could dress in nice suits.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    14. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by eyrieowl · · Score: 5, Funny

      Conveniently accounts for walking on water too.

    15. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by kidgenius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is a/the goal of evolution?

      There isn't one. Evolution is a process. It is not sentient. "It" isn't trying to achieve anything. It just explains how things happen, not why.

      Indiana Jones explained it best:

      "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. "

      Replace "Archaeology" with "science"

    16. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by Sentrion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't have anything against people practicing a particular religion. I do have problems with advocates of a particular religion latching onto an urban legend (or rural legend, in the case of Loch Ness), suggesting there is evidence to support such a myth which can then be referenced to support their own agenda for the origins of species and the universe, all the while dismissing mountains beyond mountains of evidence that could possibly conflict with their own view of creation.

      There is a difference between having faith in what you don't fully understand and just closing your eyes, putting your hands over your years and saying over and over "your wrong! your wrong! I know 100% what I believe is true. All evidence to the contrary is fabricated by Satan. I will not be deceived by your vile lies."

      I have to take small "acts of faith" every day. I presume that the dollars I earned this week will still be worth about the same by the time I get the chance to use them. I trust that when my doctor asks for my social security number that he or his staff isn't going to steal my identity. I could be wrong about any of these presumptions, but you have to weigh the risks against the rewards. I don't fault a person for fearing his or her own mortality and living a life based on the faith that if their religion is true they will enjoy an afterlife. Those who desire a better afterlife so much that they ignore the problems of this world, or crash planes into buildings - I do have a problem with that.

      As for myself, I actually attended one of these fundamentalist type schools during middle- and high-school. It took several years after leaving to un-warp my mind. Textbooks in the early 90's also had a small paragraph along with a picture of the dead thing pulled up by the Japanese fishing boat. My favorite was a sketch explaining how "evolutionists" used circular reasoning:

          Student: "how do you know how old that fossil is?"
          Scientist: "because I found it in a particular geologic layer"
          Student: "how did you know how old the geologic layer was?"
          Scientist: "because of the fossils we found in it"

    17. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Acting in the name of God is the utmost of arrogance, and doesn't indicate that God was on their side, just that they believed it so.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    18. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you extrapolate on human evolution (see Idiocracy), it will more likely be Schrödinger's lolcat. I'd say "I can haz Heizenburger?"

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    19. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, no, the fundamentalists are not trolling, they honestly believe a fairy tale disproves science.

      It's not about "proving" anything, it's about giving young people a compelling story until they get older and grow out of dinosaurs, and into Thomist exegesis and pre-Tribulationist doctrine.

      It's not about evidence, it's about conditioning children to accept fairy stories as valid epistemology. Once that's done, the story is changed to suit whatever purpose is required.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    20. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At the core, Fundies are pure White Trash and never forget it. They wallow in their degenerate backwardness like the Taliban. They are perfect examples of what religious thinking produces.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    21. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by asdf7890 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Though if such a god cared, you'd think he'd do something to defend his name. It isn't like he'd be new to the smiting game.

    22. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by asdf7890 · · Score: 5, Funny
      No, Moses was the biker of the bible:

      "the roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills."

    23. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stop anthropomorphizing programmers. We hate that.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    24. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, all Im trying to do here is to get these christian-bashing 'scientists' to say silly things.

      But all you've managed to do is prove just how unpleasant a christian ideologue can be.

      Science is not a threat to Christianity, friend. Ignorance, on the other hand, almost certainly is.

      If you want to cast your lot with those that say "Science can't be right because it disagrees with Genesis" then you prove ignorance of both Science and Christianity. Remember, Jesuits played a big part in establishing the geological record that is used to prove the account in Genesis is meant as creation myth, not as historical record. It's only recently in the past century that there is a movement in pop-christianity to categorically deny science, because for pop-christians, all of reality is a threat to their desire to get people to believe anything they say.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but the contents of this article ARE what Christians teach. It's just like how it's true that Americans do actually drive around in silly jacked-up pickup trucks. The catch is, not ALL Christians believe this stuff, but the people in this article really are Christian (you only have to believe Jesus was the son of God to be a Christian), and they really do believe it. You don't get to claim they're not "true Christians" just because their beliefs are different from yours.

      Christianity is a very large and unorganized religion (certain sects are organized, but not the whole thing), and its members believe in many widely diverging things, such as creationism, snake-handling, that you'll become a god of your own planet if you're a good person in this life, etc.

    26. Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie? by tbird81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      For the record, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor.

      But the fact that monkeys already have more intelligence, more communication, and have some bipedal locomotion (thus freeing their hands) means they are more likely to progress down this path than cats.

      For monkeys to develop more intelligence from evolution, there'd have to be some advantage of slightly greater intelligence that offets the costs (e.g bigger head). Evolution doesn't just say "let's make animals more like humans", it just is. If humans died out, monkeys could very well stay like monkeys until the world ends - if there's no selection pressure on them.

      Evolution is self-evident. Obvious if something reproduces more and stays alive than something else, there'll be more of them. I can't see why fundies can't grasp this simple application of logic - but I guess if you lack the smarts/logical think to realise god doesn't exist, then you'll lack the smarts to understand other basic fundamentals.

  2. They are even dumber than they seem. by cfulton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're right. In contrast, finding Chewbacca would prove that evolution doesn't make sense.

    2. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You beat me to it. If tyey want a living fossil to disprove darwin there are plenty of real ones (I prefer horseshoe crabs myself). I suppose it shows some species havent evolved considerably for millions of years, but these idiots generally believe the Earty started with the neolithic revolution so it doesnt really help them.

    3. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by CokeJunky · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are many examples of "living fossils" -- living things that are essentially unchanged from dinosaur era fossil records including some varieties of crocodiles, fish, turtles, etc. A live 'dinosaur' would just be a bonus for these people.

      What I find most telling is that these 'schools' choose the most ridiculous possible example rather than look for the obvious ones. The argument still wouldn't stand up to the vast number of samples of extinct and changing fossils over time, but it would at least be based on scientific observations that are reliable and readily confirmed.

      --
      More Caffeine. NOW
    4. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by belthize · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you really seen any evidence that simple logical arguments will carry any weight. I certainly haven't. The agenda isn't to disprove evolution, the agenda is to assert the correctness of a literal interpretation of the Bible. There's virtually no way to have a debate with them, the only hope is a sufficiently large number of people will realize how woefully wrong they are.

    5. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by next_ghost · · Score: 4, Informative

      Funny thing is, when you use proper genetic classification of species, it turns out there are still living dinosaurs even today: birds! Every time you eat chicken, you eat a dinosaur.

    6. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until your misinformed spawn grow up and vote. Then we have a real problem.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they want a "living fossil" they only need to look in a mirror.

      If you can tell me the difference between religion and mythology, I'd be interested to know.

      I wonder what "the dark ages 2.0" will be like. With so many people like this out there, we can't be too far away from another knowledge and development extinction event.

    8. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by preaction · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're talking about "abiogenesis", which does contradict creationism. Evolution is a process that can exist with or without creationism or abiogenesis. Of course, nobody cares about this distinction, but I believe that is the distinction that GP is trying to make.

    9. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 5, Informative

      These Christians really need to take a class in evolution.

      Actually, "these Christians" are Fundamentalists. Being religious does not automatically make you dangerous until you cross the line and require people to believe what you believe.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    10. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Evolution is something observed, and tested *every day*.

      God is a concept made up by humanity. The core theology Christians believe in was fabricated by man, and the evidence of that is FAR stronger than for evolution. Its trivial to trace back the morphing and origin of key theological cornerstones through history, via primary sources.

      So, yes, its okay to lump in all Christians with that lot. Ignorance is ignorance -- it doesn't matter if a larger number of people share it.

      I was more-or-less with you until the last paragraph. No, it is not okay to lump all Christians together on the subject of evolution. A significant number of mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution as fact.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    11. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you can tell me the difference between religion and mythology, I'd be interested to know.

      It is obvious - they are spelled differently.

      OK, seriously. Religion is what you believe. Mythology is what "unenlightened" people that believe differently than you believe.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    12. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's a testable assumption, yes they can.

      And if the sun came up in the west, people on the west coast would have some marvelous sunrises.

      I.e., it's not a testable assumption. It's not even a testable belief. It's called "faith" for a reason. I'd also point out that assumptions are called assumptions because they are not testable.

      The existance of God is no more provable than the claim that the universe began with a "big bang" or whatever other theory you may have for it, or that life began by millions of years of random chemical reactions in a primordial soup.

      I don't know if it was deliberate, but the lumping of the concept of evolution as "changes over time" and evolution as "how life began" has caused more wasted time as people debate two vastly different things.

    13. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      just two political parties

      You make it sound as though there are more.

      Hate to break it to you, but there is only one party. You may enter through the left door or the right door, but once you get in side it is all the same.

      Calling it a party is pretty disingenuous. The only people partying are the politicians. You get to sit in the corner facing the wall all night, then get to pick up the bill.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    14. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by Curupira · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're right. In contrast, finding Chewbacca would prove that evolution doesn't make sense.

      Do you know what would disprove the evolution? This is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment -- that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know. It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit!

    15. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, and regarding the mythology and religion distinction: I'd put it this way - mythology is the narrative body, religion is a way to interpret it and act upon it. Greek mythology is the story about the Gods, the Cosmogony and so on. Greek religion is going to the temple and sacrificing to those Gods.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    16. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that "literal" is not always clear. For example, if I say someone is "dumb as a rock", I intend the words metaphorically, and thus the actual literal meaning is figurative, not the literal meaning of the individual words. The Bible is full of metaphors, which aren't intended to be taken word for word literally. Classic example in the creation story is that it takes place over six "days", yet the sun wasn't created until several "days" into the story, which means the literal meaning of "day" couldn't apply. And therefore what is meant by "day" is a figure and not a period of sunlight and darkness. Same with light and darkness being created before the sun or stars: most Christian theologians interpret that as the creation of the angels, and separation of the angels from the demons.

      Finding the literal meaning of a text at the figurative level is quite common in classic literature, but a lot of people don't realize this.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    17. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.)

      An absence of belief in god(s) is not the same as a belief in their absence.

    18. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)"

      "Agnostics" saying this more does not make it more true.

      Courtesy of the scientific method and burden of proof, a positive claim is false until proven. That doesn't imply ignorance. God does not exist until god is proven to exist. Further, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so god is extremely unlikely until some sort of proof starts showing up.

      Here's a test. When it comes to elves, do you say you are "agnostic?" Elves have just as much proof as god. In fact, both Icelandic and LOTR elves have the exact same proof; so you should be agnostic to them both coexisting. Yet no sane person would say "I am not sure" - they would say, "no, elves do not exist."

      That's the problem with agnostics. The word means nothing. Atheists ARE agnostics in the strict sense: if god were proven, we would have to accept that god exists (even if that god is evil/incompetent). Until then, we do not say "well, god MIGHT exist, so we should use a special word to make it look like we're not against religion, just in cane," just like you do not say "hmm, well..." when asked if you believe Middle Earth is literally located in New Zealand. The difference that I see existing between atheists and self-proclaimed "agnostics" (most of whom are actually deists trying to sound more intelligent) is that one understands logical processes and probability, and one does not.

      Please stop insulting people using your misunderstanding of common words.

    19. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The stupid thing is that the debate has nothing to do with God.

      God could use natural selection to create humans just as much as he could make them appear of nothingness in a blink of an eye.

      Some people want to believe in a very literal interpretation of a set of books that started as verbal stories and then were written, re-written, edited, translated, re-translated, and then re-translated again, by committee, into a language that didn't even exist when any of the Bible took place. Taking the Bible completely literally is a bad idea, and it doesn't help when verses get cherry-picked out of context.

      Furthermore, you could easily posit that God did make it all appear in a blink of an eye, but did it in such a way as to look like evolution happened. After that point, normal processes kicked in, and continued to shape the world as we would expect. Which means that a) both creationism and natural selection are correct in their own time and place, and b) that there is no reason you can't respect that God made a world where science obviously helps explain it.

      Fact is, the problem has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with pride and stubbornness.

    20. Re:They are even dumber than they seem. by rmstar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The scientific perspective truly is that there was no god involved in creation.

      That is ridiculously untrue. Science is science, not religion. Science has no perspective on God because God is outside the scope of any science. Any scientist who starts dealing with God is stepping out of science firmly into religion.

      I think you do not know much about science. When trying to find an explanation, no serious scientist invokes god. That's what I meant. The scientific perspective is indeed that no, there is no god. And nobody can forbid me from drawing my own conclusions about the universe from that, and from the incredible success science has had in making our lifes better. In particular when compared whith what religion has done and continuous to do to us.

      Also, it is easy to formulate a hypothesis like "is it true that there is a benevolent god that loves everyone and wont let you down if you believe in him and pray?" and test it against data (well, alas).

      You can explain everything plausibly without a God figure,

      Which is not "there is no God". It may be "this is a plausible explanation", but it certainly isn't "this is the only way it could have happened".

      The question is, should I believe in god? Is he/she/it necessary as a concept? Observation suggests it isn't, and for many people, that is as much religion as they need: emprically, there is no god around to help us nor to worry about . We are here by ourselves, and we better care well for each other, because nobody else will. I can also tell you that living without religion is possible and quite enjoyable.

      I've see so many wrong and simply ignorant words put in the mouths of "believers" by people who have no clue and no desire to understand what those believers really think to accept any patent statement like yours. You don't really know what "believers" think, so saying that you've proven there is no God because you don't understand why he'd do what his believers think he'd do is just ... well, presumptive to be kind.

      Empirically, those reasonable believers look to me a lot like closet atheists.

      I still haven't figured out why people believe. What's the point?

  3. Further evidence by 0123456789 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the Lousiana schools are ignoring important documentary footage of the family of Nessie from the 80s, as described here.

  4. Flying Spaghetti Monster? by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Flying Spaghetti Monster? by redneckmother · · Score: 5, Funny

      Careful with that line of reasoning. Pretty soon you'll get to "Witches are real". And we all know what you do to witches.

      Put them on a balance scale with ducks?

  5. Failed argument on all counts by Kurt+Granroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  6. Re:Insomnia? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 5, Funny

    With his daughter.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  7. Re:Supposedly, birds are dinosaurs by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Informative

    How about this from a quick search of wikipedia.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  8. It's like with chimps and human evolution by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
  9. Intelligence test by optimism · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Not the same by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. I was homeschooled with ACE by BlueKitties · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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]
  12. Not exactly like that. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Brace yourselves! It has begun! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.