As far as bats are concerned, my quick searches of Google indicate that most biologists will admit that there's very little fossil evidence of the evolutionary development of bats. Which is to be expected: they're small and their bones are delicate. But you can't expect the lack of fossils to make a biologist say, "oh, well, in that case, God must have put them here exactly as they are." Especially when the fossil record shows no evidence of bats existing before about 55 mya - and of course, no evidence of God even existing, much less making bats from dust.
Do a quick Google search for "Bat Evolution" and there's plenty of interesting stuff. You won't find any biologists saying "evolution demands that such-and-such creature existed" - you'll mostly find frank admissions that we don't know that much about how bats came about.
The thing is, we'll learn a lot more about bats and their ancestry by studying those that exist, comparing their DNA to other mammals, continuing to look for what few fossils may exist - in other words, doing science - than we will by taking Genesis at face value and saying "that's that".
Also note that at some point, scientists did start from scratch, not using evolution or the Bible as the basis. Observed facts have strongly supported evolution, and typically creationists only point to lack of evidence in a few areas (like bats) as support for creation. There's very little scientific evidence for creation, and the root of the theory (the existence of God) doesn't lend itself to experimentation or observation. That is why scientists have a "bias" towards evolution, because the alternative theory can't be tested.
Incidentally, why is it so hard for some Christians to accept the early parts of Genesis as mostly being metaphor and parable? Jesus primarily used parables to teach, and Jesus is God, so why would it be so shocking to find that the account of the creation of the universe, which could only have come directly from God, is not exactly literal? Sometimes some of the Biblical literalists seem so caught up in it that if they ever did find convincing evidence that something in the Bible wasn't 100% accurate, they'd turn into atheists because they wouldn't be able to reconcile their faith with the facts.
And on a totally bizarre tangent, I'm wondering why we never hear of orthodox Jews fighting against the teaching of evolution - I mean, Genesis was their story a couple thousand years before it became part of a Christian Bible.
I agree the bashing is a bit much, really what I should have linked to was the article about the researchers who attempted to claim the alleged prize money, and Hovind's responses which indicated that any attempt to claim the prize would probably be a fruitless endeavor. Still, the fact that Hovind's "degree" in science comes from a university that is housed in what looks like a suburban family home is quite interesting.
Oh, and there are a bunch of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or at least, there were who can attest that E=mc^2 is based on a lot more than faith. Of course, that's hardly a fair comparison to evolution - Einstein's equations are mathematical derivations based on the observed fact that the speed of light in vacuo is measured to be the same by all ovservers in an inertial frame of reference. That's about as hard science as science gets - questions on origins of life, the universe, and everything (42?) can never be as cut-and-dried.
To say that evolution is based on faith, though, ignores the amount of circumstantial evidence in the fossil record, in genetics, in geology, in astronomy/cosmology, et cetera. All these scientific disciplines have differing evidences that indicate an age of the earth and the universe far in excess of the 6,000 years or so indicated in the Bible. And to anyone who believes they all got together and conspired against Christianity, I've got some real estate near Roswell you might be interested in.;)
Oh, and one point I'd really like to hear you touch on is how the moon and its expanding orbit of the earth fits in with evolution. I see that is a serious problem myself. What about you?
Oh yeah, because if the moon's orbit was a teensy bit smaller many years ago, animals couldn't have evolved. Makes sense to me. Would you like to express your point clearly enough now that someone might be able to touch on it?
The entire fossil record shows the evidence of new information introduced as a result of evolution. The deeper you dig, the further back you go (unless you totally distrust all the modern methods of dating, in which case I'm wasting my time), and the simpler the life forms you find fossilized.
If you're asking why we don't see it happening around us now, it's because we've only been looking at it for a few hundred years, and differentiation takes thousands to millions of years. Also, we don't know of every species on earth. We discover new ones all the time, and for all we know, some of them may have undergone major changes fairly recently.
Incidentally, strains of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics might be an example of this happening, although it's also quite possible that the genes for resistance were already there and only now have they become an advantage.
Here's how the evolution story goes. There is an object in space (Where did it come from? Who knows.) BOOM there is a huge explosion. Stuff goes flying everywhere.
That's not the evolution story. Evolution is a theory in biology. You're talking about the Big Bang theory, in cosmology.
Suddenly, something happens, and the goop comes to life!
Again, this is not really part of the theory of evolution. But you can be forgiven for that misstep, since you're at least somewhere between organic chemistry and biology here. You do realize that modern abiogenesis (life from non-life) theories speculate that the first "living" things were very simple self-replicating peptides, chains of maybe a dozen amino acids, and amino acids are known to form spontaneously under varied conditions?
A rat becomes a bat. Missing link? Still missing. (Not to mention, a half-rat half-bat would not be very well designed to survive).
No, Evolution states that a rat and a bat have a common ancestor, not that one turned into the other. And if you really believe that a creature with rudimentary wings would be ill-equipped to survive, I suppose you've never seen a flying squirrel or any species of gliding lizard.
Oh, and by the way, before you start questioning other's beliefs... you should check the validity of your own. It just makes you look like an ass when you froth at the mouth while uttering nonsense.
Judging by your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, I think Jesus might be telling you something about a plank and a splinter right about now.
The Gnostics believe that the serpent was in fact Yeshua (Jesus), freeing Adam and Eve from the prison that the God of the Hebrews put them in, giving them the knowledge to transcend his lame trickery.
Kind of like the ST:TNG Episode "Devil's Due", where Picard frees the people of Ventax Two from the trickery of Ardra?
Strangely enough, Jesus refers to himself as the "Morning Star" in Revelation. In Isaiah, Lucifer is called the Morning Star. But... Isaiah was actually talking about a Babylonian king who was referred to as the "Son of Dawn". Then in the 4th Century St. Jerome translated this as "lucifer", Latin for "Bearer of Light". The scholars creating the KJV made Lucifer into a proper name, and Isaiah's prophecy of the ancient king's downfall has gotten mixed up with Satan's fall from heaven.
To take the Gnostic view to an interesting conclusion, look at the punishments YHVH metes out on the humans: Pain in childbirth - caused by the infant's skull being a bit big in the birth canal, the result of our brain development (the tree of knowledge, eh). Enmity between us and the serpent - humans crucified Yeshua on his return. One might even argue that modern Christianity continuing to believe so strongly in YHVH (eye for an eye? six-day creationism?) and rejecting the really hard teachings of Yeshua (love your enemy? judge not? give up all you own and follow me?) is a continuation of that enmity. Oh, and subjection of women to men (YHVH tells Eve "he shall rule over thee"), which St. Paul even supports in the New Testament.
if the bible story is true then your god is an incompetent twit, since people still learn each other's languages easily enough to cooperate on large construction projects.
Heh heh. Let's look at Genesis 11:1-9
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Okay, the Lord came down to see the tower. Um, I thought he was omniscient, couldn't he see it from heaven? Anyway, he actually seems concerned that these people might succeed in building a tower to heaven. Now, if modern humans can put objects in orbit, on the moon, even to the edges of the solar system, and still haven't reached heaven - why did God think that the primitive tribes could build a tower to get there? And furthermore, even if the people did reach heaven, how would that be a threat to God?
It's hard for me to imagine how a fundamentalist Christian can read this passage and accept that it is literally true, right down to God visiting Babel in person (and talking to himself). It would strongly indicate that God is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful, that heaven is something we should be able to find just a couple hundred feet in the air, and that God needs some therapy for his multiple-personality disorder. Perhaps they just don't follow the consequence of that belief to its logical conclusion - but a belief that you don't analyze to understand what it really means seems a bit pointless.
It makes much more sense to think this is what the ancient Hebrews made up to tell their kids when they asked why people spoke so many languages. Or perhaps it's a subtle hint from God that if we could put our differences aside and work together, there's no limit to what we could accomplish.
The ability to speak is far more important than just attracting a mate. Groups of early people who could communicate would be much more successful in hunting to feed the family, in combat with neighboring tribes, in almost every aspect of life. Thus, they'd be much more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
That said, the first man who could sing like Barry White probably had a huge reproductive advantage over his fellow men.;)
Oh boy, Kent Hovind's alleged prize for proof of evolution. Needless to say, finding evidence of evolution that is convincing enough for this nutcase would be next to impossible. You'd pretty much have to invent a time machine and carry him back millions of years, and then you'd have to convince him your time machine wasn't an elaborate hoax.
On the flip side, some other shmoe could offer a huge prize for "proof" that God created the world in seven days about 6,000 years ago. The prize would be just as unclaimed as Hovind's. Would that make you doubt the Bible? Of course, such a prize is not out there, because real scientists don't attempt to prove their theories by saying "nyah nyah, you can't prove yours."
DRM will happen. Deal with it, Michael. What other solution would you offer to deal with the rampant piracy and IP theft that escalates every single day?
People shoplift from grocery stores every day also, but I don't have to get new licenses for my soup if I move it from one cabinet to another. Let the RIAA etc. do what grocery stores do and add the "losses" due to piracy onto everyone else's bill.
Looking at the price vs. cost of production of CDs, it appears that they must already do this. Not to mention that they get a chunk of every blank CD Audio disc sold. Bingo, problem solved. Now quit with the DRM shit, you bastard record companies!
Seriously, how can they expect consumers to put up with that much hassle to "protect" their multi-billion-dollar industry from the miniscule sales they really lose to piracy?
Epcot would make sense if only it hadn't been built a couple of decades after Walt died.
Well, yeah, but they could have moved him there after they built it. You're right about Tomorrowland, though, that's the perfect place for Walt's corpsicle.
Re:stunned at the weight
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 2
Newer SUVs almost weigh a ton...
Dude, my Toyota Echo weighs a ton (2030lb, actually). There are SUV's weighing in at nearly four tons (Ford Excursion - 7700lb).
Nah, if you worked for 500,000 years at minimum wage (what is it now, $5.50/hour? that's the number I'm gonna use, anyway) full time (40hr/wk, 50wk/yr) you'd make $5.5 billion dollars, which would easily have paid for everything.
Now, we haven't figured out how much the lifespan-prolonging treatments will cost - perhaps we need to ask Monty Burns when he gets through singing "Good Morning, Starshine"!
Yes, I'll agree that there's a kind of genius there. Not everything Paul wrote was pop cheese by any means, and on the other hand Lennon had his fair share of cheesiness in the early days too. That's part of why the Beatles were so great, though: you had three songwriters with differing styles that meshed just right.
Yes, John might still be alive if he and Paul had never met, but he wouldn't have had nearly the influence that he did.
Just to go further and further off topic, my 7-month old daughter has a pull-toy attached to her stroller that plays "Imagine". I haven't yet seen pull toys with "Band On The Run" or even "My Sweet Lord" (though perhaps they have them in India?).
The cheesy mindlessness of it is undeniably McCartney though. It makes you think for two seconds if you're really shallow, less than that if you're over the age of 12.
Not only that Anonymous Coward, but with the amount of posts you make to/. you need one of those just to keep up!
Hey, I never thought about it before, but your post made me think. Anonymous Coward can obviously post more than once every two minutes, so why can't I?
Well, silly, you used a word (diurnal) that the editors haven't yet learned in their 6th Grade vocabulary studies. So of course your submission got rejected.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh heh. Do you live in or around Alabaster, Alabama? I just saw an eMachine keyboard at the local thrift store today.
They already do. Why do you think CDs are so expensive?
Um, I think you (and the poster above you) both missed the very next sentence of my post where I said that myself.
As far as bats are concerned, my quick searches of Google indicate that most biologists will admit that there's very little fossil evidence of the evolutionary development of bats. Which is to be expected: they're small and their bones are delicate. But you can't expect the lack of fossils to make a biologist say, "oh, well, in that case, God must have put them here exactly as they are." Especially when the fossil record shows no evidence of bats existing before about 55 mya - and of course, no evidence of God even existing, much less making bats from dust.
Do a quick Google search for "Bat Evolution" and there's plenty of interesting stuff. You won't find any biologists saying "evolution demands that such-and-such creature existed" - you'll mostly find frank admissions that we don't know that much about how bats came about.
The thing is, we'll learn a lot more about bats and their ancestry by studying those that exist, comparing their DNA to other mammals, continuing to look for what few fossils may exist - in other words, doing science - than we will by taking Genesis at face value and saying "that's that".
Also note that at some point, scientists did start from scratch, not using evolution or the Bible as the basis. Observed facts have strongly supported evolution, and typically creationists only point to lack of evidence in a few areas (like bats) as support for creation. There's very little scientific evidence for creation, and the root of the theory (the existence of God) doesn't lend itself to experimentation or observation. That is why scientists have a "bias" towards evolution, because the alternative theory can't be tested.
Incidentally, why is it so hard for some Christians to accept the early parts of Genesis as mostly being metaphor and parable? Jesus primarily used parables to teach, and Jesus is God, so why would it be so shocking to find that the account of the creation of the universe, which could only have come directly from God, is not exactly literal? Sometimes some of the Biblical literalists seem so caught up in it that if they ever did find convincing evidence that something in the Bible wasn't 100% accurate, they'd turn into atheists because they wouldn't be able to reconcile their faith with the facts.
And on a totally bizarre tangent, I'm wondering why we never hear of orthodox Jews fighting against the teaching of evolution - I mean, Genesis was their story a couple thousand years before it became part of a Christian Bible.
I agree the bashing is a bit much, really what I should have linked to was the article about the researchers who attempted to claim the alleged prize money, and Hovind's responses which indicated that any attempt to claim the prize would probably be a fruitless endeavor. Still, the fact that Hovind's "degree" in science comes from a university that is housed in what looks like a suburban family home is quite interesting.
;)
Oh, and there are a bunch of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or at least, there were who can attest that E=mc^2 is based on a lot more than faith. Of course, that's hardly a fair comparison to evolution - Einstein's equations are mathematical derivations based on the observed fact that the speed of light in vacuo is measured to be the same by all ovservers in an inertial frame of reference. That's about as hard science as science gets - questions on origins of life, the universe, and everything (42?) can never be as cut-and-dried.
To say that evolution is based on faith, though, ignores the amount of circumstantial evidence in the fossil record, in genetics, in geology, in astronomy/cosmology, et cetera. All these scientific disciplines have differing evidences that indicate an age of the earth and the universe far in excess of the 6,000 years or so indicated in the Bible. And to anyone who believes they all got together and conspired against Christianity, I've got some real estate near Roswell you might be interested in.
Oh, and one point I'd really like to hear you touch on is how the moon and its expanding orbit of the earth fits in with evolution. I see that is a serious problem myself. What about you?
Oh yeah, because if the moon's orbit was a teensy bit smaller many years ago, animals couldn't have evolved. Makes sense to me. Would you like to express your point clearly enough now that someone might be able to touch on it?
The entire fossil record shows the evidence of new information introduced as a result of evolution. The deeper you dig, the further back you go (unless you totally distrust all the modern methods of dating, in which case I'm wasting my time), and the simpler the life forms you find fossilized.
If you're asking why we don't see it happening around us now, it's because we've only been looking at it for a few hundred years, and differentiation takes thousands to millions of years. Also, we don't know of every species on earth. We discover new ones all the time, and for all we know, some of them may have undergone major changes fairly recently.
Incidentally, strains of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics might be an example of this happening, although it's also quite possible that the genes for resistance were already there and only now have they become an advantage.
Here's how the evolution story goes. There is an object in space (Where did it come from? Who knows.) BOOM there is a huge explosion. Stuff goes flying everywhere.
That's not the evolution story. Evolution is a theory in biology. You're talking about the Big Bang theory, in cosmology.
Suddenly, something happens, and the goop comes to life!
Again, this is not really part of the theory of evolution. But you can be forgiven for that misstep, since you're at least somewhere between organic chemistry and biology here. You do realize that modern abiogenesis (life from non-life) theories speculate that the first "living" things were very simple self-replicating peptides, chains of maybe a dozen amino acids, and amino acids are known to form spontaneously under varied conditions?
A rat becomes a bat. Missing link? Still missing. (Not to mention, a half-rat half-bat would not be very well designed to survive).
No, Evolution states that a rat and a bat have a common ancestor, not that one turned into the other. And if you really believe that a creature with rudimentary wings would be ill-equipped to survive, I suppose you've never seen a flying squirrel or any species of gliding lizard.
Oh, and by the way, before you start questioning other's beliefs... you should check the validity of your own. It just makes you look like an ass when you froth at the mouth while uttering nonsense.
Judging by your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, I think Jesus might be telling you something about a plank and a splinter right about now.
The Gnostics believe that the serpent was in fact Yeshua (Jesus), freeing Adam and Eve from the prison that the God of the Hebrews put them in, giving them the knowledge to transcend his lame trickery.
Kind of like the ST:TNG Episode "Devil's Due", where Picard frees the people of Ventax Two from the trickery of Ardra?
Strangely enough, Jesus refers to himself as the "Morning Star" in Revelation. In Isaiah, Lucifer is called the Morning Star. But... Isaiah was actually talking about a Babylonian king who was referred to as the "Son of Dawn". Then in the 4th Century St. Jerome translated this as "lucifer", Latin for "Bearer of Light". The scholars creating the KJV made Lucifer into a proper name, and Isaiah's prophecy of the ancient king's downfall has gotten mixed up with Satan's fall from heaven.
To take the Gnostic view to an interesting conclusion, look at the punishments YHVH metes out on the humans: Pain in childbirth - caused by the infant's skull being a bit big in the birth canal, the result of our brain development (the tree of knowledge, eh). Enmity between us and the serpent - humans crucified Yeshua on his return. One might even argue that modern Christianity continuing to believe so strongly in YHVH (eye for an eye? six-day creationism?) and rejecting the really hard teachings of Yeshua (love your enemy? judge not? give up all you own and follow me?) is a continuation of that enmity. Oh, and subjection of women to men (YHVH tells Eve "he shall rule over thee"), which St. Paul even supports in the New Testament.
Quite a bit of food for thought there.
Heh heh. Let's look at Genesis 11:1-9
Okay, the Lord came down to see the tower. Um, I thought he was omniscient, couldn't he see it from heaven? Anyway, he actually seems concerned that these people might succeed in building a tower to heaven. Now, if modern humans can put objects in orbit, on the moon, even to the edges of the solar system, and still haven't reached heaven - why did God think that the primitive tribes could build a tower to get there? And furthermore, even if the people did reach heaven, how would that be a threat to God?
It's hard for me to imagine how a fundamentalist Christian can read this passage and accept that it is literally true, right down to God visiting Babel in person (and talking to himself). It would strongly indicate that God is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful, that heaven is something we should be able to find just a couple hundred feet in the air, and that God needs some therapy for his multiple-personality disorder. Perhaps they just don't follow the consequence of that belief to its logical conclusion - but a belief that you don't analyze to understand what it really means seems a bit pointless.
It makes much more sense to think this is what the ancient Hebrews made up to tell their kids when they asked why people spoke so many languages. Or perhaps it's a subtle hint from God that if we could put our differences aside and work together, there's no limit to what we could accomplish.
The ability to speak is far more important than just attracting a mate. Groups of early people who could communicate would be much more successful in hunting to feed the family, in combat with neighboring tribes, in almost every aspect of life. Thus, they'd be much more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
;)
That said, the first man who could sing like Barry White probably had a huge reproductive advantage over his fellow men.
Oh, and by the way, it's spelled "ridiculous" as in "deserving of ridicule".
Oh boy, Kent Hovind's alleged prize for proof of evolution. Needless to say, finding evidence of evolution that is convincing enough for this nutcase would be next to impossible. You'd pretty much have to invent a time machine and carry him back millions of years, and then you'd have to convince him your time machine wasn't an elaborate hoax.
On the flip side, some other shmoe could offer a huge prize for "proof" that God created the world in seven days about 6,000 years ago. The prize would be just as unclaimed as Hovind's. Would that make you doubt the Bible? Of course, such a prize is not out there, because real scientists don't attempt to prove their theories by saying "nyah nyah, you can't prove yours."
Here's a link for you: The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind.
DRM will happen. Deal with it, Michael. What other solution would you offer to deal with the rampant piracy and IP theft that escalates every single day?
People shoplift from grocery stores every day also, but I don't have to get new licenses for my soup if I move it from one cabinet to another. Let the RIAA etc. do what grocery stores do and add the "losses" due to piracy onto everyone else's bill.
Looking at the price vs. cost of production of CDs, it appears that they must already do this. Not to mention that they get a chunk of every blank CD Audio disc sold. Bingo, problem solved. Now quit with the DRM shit, you bastard record companies!
Seriously, how can they expect consumers to put up with that much hassle to "protect" their multi-billion-dollar industry from the miniscule sales they really lose to piracy?
Epcot would make sense if only it hadn't been built a couple of decades after Walt died.
Well, yeah, but they could have moved him there after they built it. You're right about Tomorrowland, though, that's the perfect place for Walt's corpsicle.
Newer SUVs almost weigh a ton...
Dude, my Toyota Echo weighs a ton (2030lb, actually). There are SUV's weighing in at nearly four tons (Ford Excursion - 7700lb).
I would have thought he'd be under It's A Small World. Or actually, somewhere in Epcot would make more sense, wouldn't it?
Nah, if you worked for 500,000 years at minimum wage (what is it now, $5.50/hour? that's the number I'm gonna use, anyway) full time (40hr/wk, 50wk/yr) you'd make $5.5 billion dollars, which would easily have paid for everything.
Now, we haven't figured out how much the lifespan-prolonging treatments will cost - perhaps we need to ask Monty Burns when he gets through singing "Good Morning, Starshine"!
Yes, I'll agree that there's a kind of genius there. Not everything Paul wrote was pop cheese by any means, and on the other hand Lennon had his fair share of cheesiness in the early days too. That's part of why the Beatles were so great, though: you had three songwriters with differing styles that meshed just right.
Yes, John might still be alive if he and Paul had never met, but he wouldn't have had nearly the influence that he did.
Just to go further and further off topic, my 7-month old daughter has a pull-toy attached to her stroller that plays "Imagine". I haven't yet seen pull toys with "Band On The Run" or even "My Sweet Lord" (though perhaps they have them in India?).
The cheesy mindlessness of it is undeniably McCartney though. It makes you think for two seconds if you're really shallow, less than that if you're over the age of 12.
Why don't trolls regenerate anymore?
Must be because of the lameness filters. Oh, sorry, different kind of trolls we're talking about, huh?
Not only that Anonymous Coward, but with the amount of posts you make to /. you need one of those just to keep up!
Hey, I never thought about it before, but your post made me think. Anonymous Coward can obviously post more than once every two minutes, so why can't I?
Heck, I was excited to see the Buck & Meg ads in Computer Shopper (300 meg HDD for $300.)
You whippersnapper! I remember when a 30 meg drive could cost $3,000.
I'm thinking more along the lines of...
krap
Well, silly, you used a word (diurnal) that the editors haven't yet learned in their 6th Grade vocabulary studies. So of course your submission got rejected.
Fact: Venice is sinking and many of its famous piazzas are frequently flooded.
Whew. For a second there I thought you said the pizzas were flooded.