backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by drycrust3.. on Dec 24 at 8:21 AM

Daesh (the so-called "Islamic State") probably isn't very happy either

If there's one thing America's most dogmatic evangelists (comprised of a diverse cadre of Muslims, Christians, etc.) and Daesh (aka "the Islamic State") can agree on it's that evolutionary theory is surely the work of the devil -- or so they say.  Unfortunately for their supporters, the former group hasn't been as successful in banning science from the classroom and the market as the latter group.  But that hasn't stopped them from doing their ... er... damndest to stifle public awareness of evolutionary theory.

Today the creationist crowd took aim at Google Inc. (GOOG) for the company's Doodle of the day that depicted the ascent of man from hominid precursors.  Unfortunately the creationist crowd seemed to struggle to understand the topic they were chiming in on. "@TruthfromChrist" for instance, tried to claim that scientists believe man evolved from apes. He was adamant in how wrong that notion was.  And he's right!  But unfortunately for him that's not the view of evolutionary theorists, anthropologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc.  Rather, man and apes share a common answer.  But alas, time after time it seems the old "man evolved from apes" trope crops up.

Others went for a more abstract argument, e.g. Interestingly while there is a wealth of fossil evidence supporting evolutionary theory, most scientists would agree that there's no evidence for or against the notion that some higher entity might have had a hand in the Big Bang (God?  The Flying Spaghetti Monster?).  Science isn't about knowing all the answers a priori.  It's about observation and developing logical and self-consistent descriptions of past, present, and future occurences.  

Evolutionary critics would be wise to beware the "future" bit in particular, as creationist beliefs aside, their insistence on disavowing evolution in the present makes their case especially farscical.  After all, remember, this story isn't over.  In fact you could say it's just begun.  We're still seeing evolution both in man and beast to this day.

In fact, microbiologists just a couple years ago for the first time witnessed the evolution of a wholly new metabolic pathway in a bacterial colony -- sort of the microbial equivalent of growing wings or an extra set of arms.

For the layman it's understandably tough to recognize how those things are equivalent.  However, anyone who's studied embryonic development will recognize how tiny biochemical, genetic, and epigenetic changes can have profound morphological effects in terms of developing physiological structures such as limbs, or differentiating those limbs into fingers, toes, etc.  (In fact some geneticists have recently published studies indicating mankind is gaining genes to promote larger penis sizes.)

Some of the creationist rage did manage to sound true on an unwittingly ironic note.  Take self-proclaimed "follower of Jesus Christ... hunter and Razorback fan" "@braddog8" (Brad Fairchild), who writes: While abiogenesis from biochemical precursors (or according to some theorists panspermia -- the arrival of life from other planets) isn't actually "nothing", he is half right at least -- life is pretty stupid.  Not to point any fingers, but there's ample proof of the stupidity of the masses on display here.

Any scientists will tell you -- we don't have answers.  But science is flexible where dogma is rigid.  So while surprises surely lie in store they are unlikely to "disprove" the fundamental components of scientific theory.  Rather they help us better understand its various nuances and how the path of evolution shaped the lifeforms inhabiting our Earth.

For references sake here is the Google that has led to this creationist "boycott".

Google Doodle
Evolution of Lucy

Oh the humanity.

For those curious why Google posted this image, it was posted in honor of the anniversary of the 1974 discovery of Australopithecus afarensis fossil colloquially named "Lucy".  "Lucy" was found in the Afar Depression (aka the "Afar Triangle"), a low elevation area in eastern Africa opposite the tip of the Arabian penisula.

A Afarensis
An artist's depiction of an Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's species. [Image Source: Educa Madrid]

Scientists have since found other fossilized specimens, believed to be of the same species.  And in recent years the picture of the lifestyle of these ancient hominids has also been enhanced by physiological, morphological, and biochemical studies.  Among the recent proposals include that Lucy may have spent part of her life climbing in trees making her akin to larger apes to spend time both on and off the ground.

Boilerplate Disclaimer: DailyTech is a technology site but we also touch on tech related policy (particularly defense/national security) and science.  It has always said that in our site FAQ.  So if you comment "this article isn't technology", you're right.  DailyTech is more than just "tech"!

Sources: @braddog8, @aaarrrooonnn, @TruthfromChrist, via Patheos





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just three words
By ET on 11/25/2015 2:00:29 AM , Rating: 6
You could cut the title after three words.




RE: Just three words
By ie5x on 11/25/2015 4:27:16 AM , Rating: 4
+6 this please.


RE: Just three words
By Dr of crap on 11/25/2015 8:04:08 AM , Rating: 5
+++6

I for one am just sooooooo tired of the ability of everyone to just be a$$holes!
WHO cares about a stupid picture on a search engine???

Get a life, stop being offended about EVERYTHING, and get off the internet!


RE: Just three words
By AMDftw on 11/25/2015 4:34:07 PM , Rating: 3
...because we live in a sensitive world and everyone will get butt hurt over every little thing.


RE: Just three words
By cokbun on 11/26/2015 3:19:48 AM , Rating: 2
they can't, God didn't tell them to


RE: Just three words
By phxfreddy on 11/26/15, Rating: -1
RE: Just three words
By cokbun on 11/26/2015 8:07:20 PM , Rating: 5
liberals? im indonesian. it's about logic, not politics


RE: Just three words
By phxfreddy on 11/27/15, Rating: -1
RE: Just three words
By Piiman on 11/28/2015 12:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
"If you can't agree with the above conclusions derived from evolution"

No they were made up by you and your ilk.

"then you do not believe in evolution."
So if we don't believe in your version we don't believe in evolution? Are you retarded?

"Liberals do not believe in evolution."

Creationist don't believe in God.....see how easy that is?

" They have a religion all their own. "

So??? Its not true but lets pretend it is;

At least it doesn't start wars, doesn't believe in genocide, doesn't think you should die because you don't believe in Evolution, won't kill your first born male child,won't tell you to kill your child to prove you love us,won't flood the world killing everything including women and children etc etc .
I'll pick the Church of Evolution over your vain homicidal, vindictive, flawed, God any day!


RE: Just three words
By StevoLincolnite on 12/14/2015 10:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
The hilarious part is that the theory of Evolution doesn't contradict creationist theory, they can actually compliment each other.

Not that I believe in religion.


RE: Just three words
By drycrust3 on 12/17/2015 11:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Creationist don't believe in God.....see how easy that is?

I don't think you understand: Creationists generally consider the earth and all life on it, as well as the sun, moon, planets, and stars, and pretty well everything you can see, appeared almost immediately in Geological terms. This means most of them believe in a deity, although there probably is a small percentage that don't believe in a deity.
To me, it looks like those images that have got everyone excited, when viewed from right to left, appear to be just normal ageing of humans and not in any way evidence of Homo sapiens evolving.


RE: Just three words
By ie5x on 11/30/2015 9:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
I don't "believe" in evolution. And it doesn't depend on my belief. It is supported by mounds of evidence and is a proven truth.

Please understand it doesn't matter what one "believes" in. The Earth is not flat or round because people believe so, it is round because of the evidence there is. This is inherently different from the egotistical and self-centric view of religious and creationist folks, who think the entire universe must submit and oblige to their beliefs.


RE: Just three words
By maugrimtr on 12/7/2015 10:30:31 AM , Rating: 1
You have all sorts of issues in your statements.

Firstly, evolution does not “imply” that there is no god. It simply states that the process of evolution can operate without direction from a higher power. In more recent years (long after Darwin’s death), we’ve come to understand the underlying mechanics driving evolution through mutations in DNA. Putting this more obviously on target, evolution does not in any way, shape or form concern itself with the origin of life. Whether life started 3-4 billions year ago because of a supernatural being or an as yet undiscovered chemical process is utterly irrelevant to a theory of how life, AFTER its origin, formed the species we see today.

Secondly, speaking of IQ and differences between races and sexes always needs to be put into context. You have included none at all. There is no scientific concensus on what causes divergence in standardised IQ tests, but the majority do expect non-genetic factors to have an impact. We probably need more East Asian scientists - they score higher than European people in the same tests you are referring to afterall.

You make the same mistake around math skills between men and women. If you report who is best at math, the answer is likely in favour of men in many nations. In other words, you are reporting a localised bias. Looking elsewhere, girls score higher than boys in over half of the OECD nations. The reality is that, while girls and boys have different performance distributions and each sex is better in certain areas than the other on average, their average potential performance is the same. Gender inequality tends to have a significant impact on girls' performance. Remove it, and they can perform as well, or better, than boys.


RE: Just three words
By tamalero on 11/28/2015 3:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
You were home schooled by ultra conservatives, dont you?


RE: Just three words
By Piiman on 11/28/2015 11:47:38 AM , Rating: 1
Try to pay attention
You have no idea what anyone but yourself believes or why so STFU

And your logic is BS.
Why? Try to pay attention
1. you don't know every liberal
2. You made up it all up, because you don't know every liberal

Now, again, STFU



RE: Just three words
By DFSolley on 11/30/2015 2:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
It is kinda funny that you would call BS on someone for saying what all liberals believe when the thread seems to be about what all creationists are...


RE: Just three words
By Rukkian on 12/1/2015 1:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
While I understand your comment, there is one big flaw - liberal is not about religion on non-religion. There are plenty of religious "liberals". In general, a liberal (in the us, it is a general term used for derogatory labeling by right wing nut-jobs) simply does not want to force their "beliefs" (whether that is religious, or not) on others and think that people should be able to think for themselves.

Conservative does not historically mean religious zealout, as it is more about the financial (aka spending theories), but has been perverted by the extreme right-wing nut job and tea-party members that think they should be forcing their religion on others and trying to divide the country (in this case the US) into a pointing match.

Throwing liberal (a general political term) around in a discussion about creationism vs evolution (why do these have to be completely against each other) just slow a lack of intelligence and probably a very sheltered life by an immature individual.


RE: Just three words
By Schrag4 on 12/2/2015 1:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Government is force. Force is the only way you can force anything on anyone (duh). Anyone who can think for themselves can see that both parties in the US want to expand the scope of government, they just pick different issues. For example, the right wages war on recreational drug use, and the left wages war on the right to bear arms. In both cases, they're advocating for limiting our freedoms, and the only way they could enforce anything on anyone is with the barrel of a gun.

Given this, I take issue with your notion that liberals want people to think and act for themselves and tea-partiers want to force anything on anyone, aside from personal responsibility. Liberals by-and-large push for larger and larger government (more and more force) and tea-partiers by-and-large push for smaller and smaller government (less and less force). I don't follow the tea-party movement all that closely, but that's all I've ever heard them talk about, smaller government, less coercion to get individuals and businesses to behave a certain way.


RE: Just three words
By Rukkian on 12/8/2015 11:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that neither side is trying to reduce government, which was your first statement, but then you said that tea-partiers want smaller government. While they say that, they then turn around and want to force their beliefs (IE new laws) on others. While they want less government in some places, they want bigger government where it helps them stay in power, which ultimately seems to be the only thing 99.9% of those in washington stand for - More power for themselves.


RE: Just three words
By Schrag4 on 12/8/2015 10:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Again, I admit I don't follow the Tea Party all that closely. Can you cite what new laws they'd like passed? Can you cite what parts of government they'd like to grow to stay in power? I'm genuinely curious, because I've not heard anything like that. The only new laws that come to mind would be laws to prevent voter fraud. I can only think of one reason someone would be opposed to something like that...because they'd like to commit voter fraud.


RE: Just three words
By Motoman on 11/25/2015 11:05:03 AM , Rating: 4
Indeed. Just imagine how much safer and more peaceful this world would be without the madness of religion.


RE: Just three words
By inighthawki on 11/25/2015 11:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
There is definitely some credit to be given about religion's ability to preach moral values to people. You have the right to believe otherwise, but as someone who got dragged to church by two highly religious parents every sunday for his entire childhood, I saw a very positive effect on the people there by the teaching. There are always extremists, but it's certainly not fair to group them in with everyone else - they are a rare breed of psychologically troubled people.

And although there are some that are vocal about things like evolution (like the twitter posts in the article), my own personal experience has shown me that the vast majority of religious people do not really care. They may or may not believe in evolution, but those that don't seldom cared that my belief was different, and respected my beliefs as much as I did theirs.

Perhaps your experiences are different, but I've always seen religion as having a mostly positive effect on people in terms of safe and peaceful.

Now whether or not it breeds idiots is an entirely different story.


RE: Just three words
By inperfectdarkness on 11/25/2015 12:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Morality can be taught without the archaic traditions of religion. Historically, the evidence points to more people dying in the name of religion...than for any other cause; and that's hard to countermand.

What the USA needs is a constitutional amendment that says something to the effect of "Commensurate with the 1st amendment, at no point does any citizen of the USA have a right to not be offended. Any conflict between freedom of speech and personal offense will be decided on behalf of freedom of speech--libel & slander not withstanding."


RE: Just three words
By inighthawki on 11/25/2015 1:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
It can, sure. But I would still say that religion has a much stronger effect on teaching moral values than anything else I've seen - although it can often be very misguided (e.g. killing in the name of god is obviously counterproductive to those teachings).

There are even evolutionary theories that suggest that humans developed the sense of a higher godly presence as a means to keep us moral - the idea that we are always being judged by a higher power has an undeniable, and very strong psychological impact on a person. Although it is not evidence of anything, there are a few good shows by Derren Brown where he demonstrates peoples' natural likelihood to behave morally in such cases.


RE: Just three words
By Motoman on 11/25/2015 5:41:45 PM , Rating: 3
Teaching your children to believe in lies with no proof available, nor possible, is the most immoral thing you can do.

FWIW, I spent the entirety of my youth attending sunday school every week, and went to church camp ever summer for ten years straight. My mother was a sunday school teacher, and the church's pianist.

Morality is not only necessarily divorced from religion, it is in fact in direct opposition to it. Religion is hatred, distrust, exclusion, and eventually violence. In all cases.

The one and only hope the human race has for long-term survivability is to outgrow religion.


RE: Just three words
By inighthawki on 11/25/2015 8:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Teaching your children to believe in lies with no proof available, nor possible, is the most immoral thing you can do.

I guess that depends on what is being taught. I went to sunday school when I was a kid, and went to church all growing up, but the church never taught me that evolution was false. On the other hand, I wouldn't really call teaching religion as teaching a lie, since the people who do so obviously believe it is true. Religion is also not a disprovable concept, since it is based on faith. One can gather all the facts and come to a conclusion about the likelihood and probability of it, but cannot directly call it a lie.

I don't believe religion is the cause of hatred, disgust, exclusion, or violence, though. These are all characteristics of human traits that are typically a result of any kind of social groupings. Religion only happens to be one of many things that cause people to act this way - among others being race, sex, nationality, wealth class, social status, political beliefs, etc. None of the things you listed are intrinsically tied to religious beliefs, but rather religion just happens to be one of many things that separates us as human beings into another class.

But to some degree I digress - my own anecdotal evidence from my own experiences with religion certainly do not amount to enough for me to really make a blanket claim. So if you disagree, then I'm not really going to press you on the subject - particularly since I do not care either way. I do not see religion as a strictly bad thing, but I do see many benefits to it not existing as well, so I'm not really arguing for a particular side, just advocating that it's not *entirely* a bad thing. A lot of good does come from it, and a lot of bad as well - but whether or not that is a net positive or a net negative can be discussed quite heavily.


RE: Just three words
By atechfan on 11/26/2015 6:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. All atheists. Apparently atheism also ultimately leads to violence.


RE: Just three words
By Piiman on 11/28/2015 12:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
HUMANS lead to violence. Aren't we special!


RE: Just three words
By nikon133 on 11/29/2015 6:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we are created in image of God, according to creationists... so we shouldn't be surprised that their God is also vengeful and violent one.

It is funny, really... I remember having a discussion with creationist friend which ended up with him being very offended... because I considered God an alien, as in extra-terrestrial. But I think my logic is perfectly sound - his God did exist before the Earth, thus he does not originate from Earth, thus he is extra-terrestrial. An Alien.

I wasn't even joking (well, not completely). I'm accepting possibility that life on Earth (and other planets) was seeded by someone, and that evolution is programmed in that seeded life forms' DNA. That "someone" could have been highly evolved specie/collective entity that has survived last big bang and is tasked to repopulate universe with life. For all accounts, they could be very God-like, maybe energy based entities. Of course, it is just a theory - one of many - that would require solid proof to be accepted - I believe in possibility, not in certainty.

However, believing in (possibility of) creator is one thing. Believing in religion is completely different thing. Any church would have to spend huge effort to convince me that illiterate farmers, merchants and fishermen from a few thousand years ago got it right, just like that.


RE: Just three words
By ie5x on 11/30/2015 9:13:10 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly there are not many people who think like you do. Guess it is much easier to fall prey to false hopes and communal pressures than to take the effort to understand how universe really works and face reality.


RE: Just three words
By GTVic on 11/29/2015 10:18:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Motoman - Religion is hatred, distrust, exclusion, and eventually violence. In all cases.
A completely unbalanced opinion.
quote:
Motoman - Indeed. Just imagine how much safer and more peaceful this world would be without the madness of religion.
It is pretty ignorant to believe that human nature would completely reverse without the impact of religion.

In fact you contradict yourself. You believe that religion is a human creation and yet you believe that humanity would be better without it.

The sad fact is that if you were correct, religion would just be replaced with some other entity with the same end result that you are determined to get away from.


RE: Just three words
By phxfreddy on 11/26/2015 10:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry to inform you but the world would not change if religion disappeared tomorrow. Think a little more deeply. You'll see it.


RE: Just three words
By ie5x on 11/30/2015 9:09:00 AM , Rating: 1
I am late this time, but please admin... +6 this one too!


RE: Just three words
By quiksilvr on 11/25/2015 12:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
The rare 6...


RE: Just three words
By weskurtz0081 on 11/25/2015 2:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
Why is this news? Some group of people that all believe in a certain concept or thing speak out against something the disagree with. Seriously, ALL groups of people do this no matter what their belief system is. What's funny is when those with opposing beliefs then speak out against the group and that groups beliefs as if one is superior to the other.

Why should I give a rats ass what someone else believes and what they do or don't think about something Google is doing? Too much wasted energy carrying about something so inconsequential.


RE: Just three words
By Argon18 on 12/2/2015 6:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense. All the standard issue Angry Atheist(tm) types out there would go ballistic if the doodle promoted Christianity in some way. They'd get all "offended" over the "micro-aggression" of "non-inclusiveness" or some foolishness like that.


RE: Just three words
By drycrust3 on 12/24/2015 8:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
Is that the best you can do to defend the theory of Evolution?
Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus. He said our words will judge us, so take the time to apologise for mocking his friends while you still have the chance. One day it will be too late to apologise, and then what?


God Doesn't Exist
By BillyBatson on 11/25/15, Rating: 0
RE: God Doesn't Exist
By bug77 on 11/25/2015 5:26:23 AM , Rating: 2
About your title:

quote:
Science isn't about knowing all the answers a priori. It's about observation and developing logical and self-consistent descriptions of past, present, and future occurrences.


RE: God Doesn't Exist
By BillyBatson on 11/25/2015 12:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
Science needs to tread lightly as to not piss off all creationists while I can spout the truth as I don't care who's feelings get hurt from the truth: God doesn't exist. If we all taught our kids that Aladdin is a true story and that the Genie exists and they grow up believing that, would that make the Genie real? No. Same with God.


RE: God Doesn't Exist
By inighthawki on 11/25/2015 1:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point. Science cannot prove something's absence, and so you cannot claim "God doesn't exist" as "the truth" because there is no observable or factual evidence to support that claim. Your argument is literally along the lines of "it sounds absurd, therefore it is."


RE: God Doesn't Exist
By BillyBatson on 11/25/2015 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 1
Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can. Ghosts as an example. Can't observe them so maybe they exist? Bullshit. A "God" goes against everything we know about the universe. Just a fabricated story that got way too out of hand throughout time. God doesn't exist and I don't need proof of it. I'm also not a scientist and never claimed to be. Call me a realist? I won't give anyone any fall hope by saying "I can't prove it"


RE: God Doesn't Exist
By inighthawki on 11/25/2015 2:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
"Everything we know about the universe" is an ongoing effort that constantly tells us new things we never thought possible. A few hundred years ago the idea of a computer would be pure imagination (if anyone could even imagine something so bizarre back then). How can you build an entire virtual world in a small box and display it on a screen only millimeters thick? Without knowing about electricity or how it can be harnessed, how can you possibly know what's possible? Our miniscule comprehension of the universe has shown there is so much we don't understand - so why can something like ghosts be so quickly discarded as "impossible" just because we cannot observe them without current technology?

I'm not advocating that ghosts are real (I don't personally believe they exist) but I am also willing to accept there are things in this universe well beyond the knowledge of the smartest human on the planet, so I have no authority to make a claim as bold as saying that it's a true fact that they are not real.

You're being just as closed minded as everyone who blindly devotes themselves to religion through faith, but you are just doing the polar opposite - something seems too absurd to you, so you write it off as an impossibility just because you do not think it's possible. If you claim "God does not exist" as a truthful fact, then you need to back it up. You cannot just say "I'm not a scientist" as a means to avoid providing proof. You are making a scientific statement, so you need to prove it scientifically. Otherwise you are just stating your opinion, and it is not fact.


RE: God Doesn't Exist
By Piiman on 11/28/2015 12:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you can't prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. LOL I like how you tried the old reverse logic misdirection though. Now please prove a pink unicorn isn't your God. Good luck.


RE: God Doesn't Exist
By inighthawki on 11/28/2015 7:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's not misdirection, it's logic 101. I'm also not arguing against his belief - I too do not believe in god. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in his logic. He cannot claim his statement is true because it is impossible to be proven true.


RE: God Doesn't Exist
By drycrust3 on 12/24/2015 7:11:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
God doesn't exist.

Tomorrow is Christmas day. Do you know what the word "Christ" means? It is a title, not a surname. See the Old Testament prophets that worshipped the god whose public name is "The Lord" and is the Supreme God stood out from all other religions in the accuracy of their prophecies. Prophets of other religions made guesses about the future, but the ancient Hebrew prophets have been found to be incredibly accurate about the future, not just a few years ahead, but in some cases thousands of years ahead. How could they do this unless someone who knew the future told them? For example, the Prophet Isaiah said Israel would be established in just one day, and that is exactly what happened: in one day the British mandate of Palestine ceased, a UN decree established the modern nation of Israel, and that state was internationally recognised. It all happened in just one day. You can find more on this with Google.
Another prophecy relates to Palm Sunday, the Sunday before Jesus was crucified, died, buried, and then resurrected from death in what we know celebrate as Easter. On this day Jesus rode a donkey from the Mt of Olives down into Jerusalem, which happened on the 30th March, 30 AD. The exact month he would do this was predicted by the Prophet Daniel in 538 BC, and it related to the rebuilding of the walls of ancient Jerusalem. A decree to rebuild them was made by the Emperor Artaxerxes in 464 BC, which is over one hundred years after the prophecy was made. Some say Jesus fulfilled the prophecy exactly to the day, although my reading of it is he did it to the exact month, which he did beyond any doubt. Since there is a prophecy regarding Jesus riding into Jerusalem, then one would expect there to be other prophecies regarding things like his birth and death and resurrection and the performing of miracles, which there were.
God, the deity you say doesn't exist, decides which nations rise and which ones fall. He was the one that told those ancient prophets about the birth of Jesus and important details of his life. It is his right to decide when the nation you live in will cease to exist. I don't know if you are an American, but I'm told your money has the words "In God We Trust" written on it, this is the same God that you say doesn't exist. One day that currency will cease to be used.
Happy Christmas.
Oh, regarding science needing to tread lightly, your theory of Evolution is the one that gets the special treatment. Look at the pictures of "Man evolving" and you will see they are nothing more than pictures of the various stages of a person ageing, except portrayed from right to left.


Berlinski talking
By aleale1984 on 11/26/2015 11:17:15 AM , Rating: 2
David Berlinski (Who responded to Richard Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion, with his own book called, The Devil’s Delusion):

“Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.”




RE: Berlinski talking
By PReiger99 on 11/26/2015 1:19:11 PM , Rating: 3
Another evidences that willful stupidity and religion goes hand in hand.

It's kinda sad to see someone in 2015 who still believe in the same things as Bronze Age goat herders. To see someone who honestly believe that blissful ignorance and the belief in a magical sky daddy somehow make more sense than knowledge and sciences. And someone who still haven't figured out that absolutely disproving the existence of something is impossible, just as it is impossible to disprove (with 100% certainty) the existence of invisible pink unicorns, the Russell's celestial teapot, the flying spaghetti monster or something as equally ridiculous: your god.

However, the mere fact that no one was able to provide the slightest evidence to support such absurd claims and/or detect in any way the presence of such things, is all that it takes to say that logically they don't exist... Unless of course, you're so desperate, you're willing to believe.


RE: Berlinski talking
By drycrust3 on 12/1/2015 11:38:57 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't a religion something people require faith to believe in? So the theory of Evolution is also a religion because people believe by faith that all life arose by that theory even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support it.


RE: Berlinski talking
By Rukkian on 12/1/2015 2:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
People don't have to "believe" in evolution. There are facts (this word may be tough for you) to back up that evolution (of some type) has happened, and while there are theories about homo-sapiens origins and evolution, there is still much to be learned, which is what science is all about - learning. Science is not about picking one small thing and believing in that for all eternity without ever questioning it.


RE: Berlinski talking
By drycrust3 on 12/24/2015 8:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
People do believe in the theory of Evolution, and they believe in it even though it hasn't got any factual merit. You say "Science is not about picking one small thing and believing in that for all eternity without ever questioning it." So go ahead and question the theory of Evolution. If it is a scientificly sound theory then it should withstand your questioning. I questioned it and no one defended it with facts.
The facts are we have a collection of skeletons of aged people that are touted as proof of evolution, we have fossil layers that were all deposited in one mass extinction event that happened in the last 60,000 years that are touted as being successively deposited over millions of years when they plainly weren't, and we have incredibly complex life forms all around us, which are plainly too complex to have arisen by pure chance. See, nothing in what we've seen stands up to moderate questioning. How scientific a theory is that!
I did exactly what you said and none of the so called facts about the theory of Evolution stood up to moderate questioning.
The onus is on the advocates of the theory of Evolution to defend it. If people won't defend the Theory of Evolution against moderate questioning then it is dead.


RE: Berlinski talking
By PReiger99 on 12/1/2015 9:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"the theory of Evolution is also a religion ... there isn't a shred of evidence to support it."

I don't doubt you honestly believe that and while it is unfortunate to see people like you who are no longer able to tell the difference between fiction and reality, the tenacity with which religious believers cling to their ludicrous beliefs is nevertheless a source of constant amazement.

However (and unfortunately for you), reality doesn't care about what *you* believe. Evolution is a proven fact and there is overwhelming evidence, from every single field of science, to support it.

The problem here is that you are completely clueless about that field of study and also determined to remain ignorant because you've managed to convince yourself that learning and understanding science would somehow detract you from your occult beliefs.


RE: Berlinski talking
By drycrust3 on 12/11/2015 3:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evolution is a proven fact

Since you're an advocate of the Theory of Evolution, the onus is on you to provide proof of your claim. Currently it is still called "the Theory of Evolution".


They should be used to it...
By retrospooty on 11/25/2015 6:51:52 AM , Rating: 5
It must be frustrating to be so completely wrong, proven so by science and reminded of it almost every day.




RE: They should be used to it...
By phxfreddy on 11/26/2015 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes do please describe the state in detail fanboi.

Unless you can state out loud that "Blacks are 1 standard deviation IQ less intelligent than other races and women are not as good at math due to evolutionary selection pressure" then you do not believe in evolution.

If there is no god then there is only Darwin. If there is only Darwin then all society is based on social Darwinism.

There will be space immediately below this comment to state it....


RE: They should be used to it...
By exeedorbit on 11/27/2015 11:19:43 AM , Rating: 2
This is not a binary discussion. Just because a person doesn't believe those statements to be true, doesn't mean they do not believe in evolution.

The options aren't only Darwinism or God. There are probably hundreds of theories, some more known than others, some more accurate than others. So stop making it seem like it's black or white.


By retrospooty on 12/3/2015 10:22:34 AM , Rating: 2
What type of things do you smoke? Because I think creationists are ridiculous and deluded makes me an "evolution fanboy"? Get a clue and a grip dood.


RE: They should be used to it...
By drycrust3 on 12/11/2015 3:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
It is hard to be proven wrong when no one has provided a shred of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. Why is it so hard for advocates of that theory to actually come up with evidence? All I get is stuff like "proven so by science" and then no evidence. Currently we have a set of graphics that simply show the effects of ageing on the human skeleton, which isn't an example of the Theory of Evolution in action. The onus is on the promoters of the Theory of Evolution to actually come up with evidence supporting their theory.
The simple fact is advocates of the Theory of Evolution expect me to believe their theory because they said it was so, and God expects me to believe the world was created in 7 days simply because he said it was so. When I can look out the window and see evidence consistent with what God said, I'm going to believe he is right.


Why the conflict?
By trisct on 12/2/2015 10:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
There's no reason why both sides can't be right. God creates the heavens and the earth - but he does it with physics over a long, long, long period.

The problem is in believing it all just popped into being in a day, which is nothing more than a literary construction by the writer of that book of the Bible. Who can say how much time was involved? Its the incorrectly literal reading at fault, the bible is a mixture of prophecy and interpretation, it wasn't laid down word for word from the heavens.




RE: Why the conflict?
By justsomeone on 12/7/2015 5:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Many think you must believe the 7 day creation story of the Bible literally or not at all. I believe God created everything many millions of years ago and included intrinsically the ability to evolve and adapt. That scenario is much more believable for me especially since there's still the elephant in the room called the law of conservation of mass and energy. Honestly I don't see science ever really answering the question of where everything came from... big bang or no big bang. It's funny so many are ready to throw the concept of God out the window with a theory of evolution, when there's a much more concrete law pointing out the fact mass/energy can't just pop out of nowhere. Still it takes faith to believe in God which also seems illogical. At best these two sides are simply the pot calling the kettle black. You can't prove OR disprove God and perhaps it's best that way.


RE: Why the conflict?
By ie5x on 12/8/2015 4:07:01 AM , Rating: 2
The concept of God is useless because it doesn't answer any questions about the creation of universe other than avoiding it altogether by crediting it to a magical being. How don't you wonder who created the God you mentioned? If God can come from nothing, why can't the universe too? All the apologists are left with are these self violating arguments of gaps in the understandings of science.

Science doesn't have all the answers yet because we developed most of the model in the past few hundred years only. The useless religions on the other hand, have had ten times more time at their disposal which was wasted either in conflicts or reshaping theology based on what the popular belief was.

I would side by science because unlike the dimwits backing religion, the scientific community doesn't follow leaders. Pure observation and assertion/replication of results is what it pursues. Even though not all answers are there, there are no lies as well.

Anyways my rant is useless to you since you "believe" the universe to be a mere "many millions of years" old... The religion I was born in, people believe this world to be eternal, with creation and destruction cycles of many eons... actually much closer to the observed age of the universe according to modern science than most of the other religions. However I don't "believe" in that either. I see no value in a "belief" because I find that to be a very selfish, naive and narrow point of view to understand reality. The universe doesn't give a diddly squat about it.


RE: Why the conflict?
By justsomeone on 12/10/2015 12:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
The point of religion isn't to explain everything, but since you asked; I don't wonder who created God because I don't believe He exists in our reference of space/time. I believe He created time when he created space and matter. He exists at all times at once with no beginning and no end. I can't fully comprehend this, but neither can science with how all this matter came from nothing. That was my point. We're in the same boat with no concrete data.

I understand this is a magical belief to you, and I'm not trying to knock science as I'm in the field myself. It's that neither science nor a belief in God can explain all the details. As I stated, science can't disprove or prove God. I do however appreciate and believe the observed evidence in regards to the age of the earth and the universe. Pardon my reference to "millions". These observations present no conflicts for me whatsoever.

What's interesting to me is the underlying hostility from most atheists on this subject. Perhaps it's the sociopolitical issues that give way to unrest. I'm cool with others who believe differently than me and I don't disrespect their position. Makes it pretty hard to have reasonable discussion.


RE: Why the conflict?
By ie5x on 12/20/2015 9:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
The point of religion is to group people into one school of thought which mostly benefits the interests of a few individuals. There are more than 4K religions in the world and every single on of them, every one of those thousands of religions strongly enforce their own truth to their followers. Do you ever wonder why you subscribe to the idea of God? Do you subscribe to all different million Gods people believe-in in various forms!? With each individual firmly denying any other god which doesn't fit in their belief?? When I pondered on this question, the only answer that came to me was that I was being conditioned to a collective propaganda.

As you say you are in the field of science, how do you react to the notion of our planet being a negligible mote of dust in the known universe? This is what changed me from a former believer. It must take an ego bigger than this entire universe to consider oneself personally created by a magical being who has personal interests in what one does.

Religion is a useless burden in all forms and the early we get rid of it the better. And please don't invoke the can't prove or disprove card, its the weakest logic a religion apologist can bring into a debate. You feel the urge to believe, go ahead. I am sure like every religion, your belief is also conditioned to make you feel at peace without bringing up uncomfortable questions which completely discredit the beliefs. I am happy with science's pursuit of how this world works, not what me or anyone else can feel happy believing about. And I am ready to feel negligible, ignorant and even a failure in understanding it.


Grammer Nazi's?
By Mitch101 on 11/25/2015 10:22:04 AM , Rating: 1
Shouldn't the grammer Nazi's also be offended because they mis-spelled Google with an extra character.




RE: Grammer Nazi's?
By RapidDissent on 11/25/2015 11:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
Grammer Nazi's are actually very forgiving, though they can often be very possessive.

However, Grammar Nazis are extremely militant and quite vengeful.


RE: Grammer Nazi's?
By Dorkyman on 11/25/15, Rating: 0
RE: Grammer Nazi's?
By Camikazi on 11/25/2015 8:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
That one went right over your head :P


RE: Grammer Nazi's?
By tamalero on 11/28/2015 3:56:46 AM , Rating: 2
nothing goes over my head.. my reflexes are too fast.
I would catch it.


RE: Grammer Nazi's?
By Rukkian on 12/1/2015 2:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
That needs a +6.


God Knows
By mike66 on 11/24/2015 10:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
If god is aware of what his children are doing to his planet then he must be angry.
The people who are destroying the planet must believe in god because their god can just do his thing and ZAP the planet is livable again, while the godless know they must look after their planet as there is nowhere is to go.

That statement makes as much sense as any you will hear from a creationist. God bless.




RE: God Knows
By phxfreddy on 11/26/2015 10:16:43 AM , Rating: 2
Your point of view sounds like a religion to me. Has all the hallmarks. You know....unprovable dogma. Apocalyptic predictions.

Your mind appears to be a science free zone


RE: God Knows
By mike66 on 12/1/2015 9:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
To be human is to believe in god or otherwise why bury the dead, any anthropologist will tell you that's what separates us from the the animals. Religion is a construct that helps keeps the masses in line and that you mention dogma means that you are afraid of that control and therefore need it more than most.When asked by my young niece if I believed in god my reply was" something (an event) that we do not understand created the universe and that's where god stands." It does not mean there is a heaven or hell or afterlife but it does give you a greater strength than you can get from only believing in your self. It is the selfish children who are destroying the planet for what else have they to live for but their own selfish means. I have lived long enough to see the real changes in the weather and witnessed climate change and unfortunately it will mean the death of us all because we will never agree enough to stop it. I like science and have educated myself in all things and the more I do so see that it itself has lots to learn just like you, the proof is in the pudding.


RE: God Knows
By drycrust3 on 12/1/2015 4:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If god is aware of what his children are doing to his planet then he must be angry

I don't know the mind of God, but it wouldn't surprise me if he does get angry at some of the things we do. For example, protecting the environment probably pleases him, but pushing up house prices in a city so the average person can't afford one in the name of protecting the environment probably angers him.


The Evolution of Junk Science
By EricMartello on 11/30/2015 5:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
Because evolution is taught in school as settled science, has led most non-thinkers to simply accept it as true and automatically ridicule anyone "foolish" enough to question the theory. But once you do some digging, even at a cursory glance, it's quite apparent that the theory of evolution is quite nonsensical, perhaps even less believable than the bible's creation story.

First, lets understand a basic fact. Evolution is pure junk science at its worst. It's the climate change garbage of the 18th century which is based purely on conjecture, correlation and consensus. In the early days, there was quite a bit of fraud perpetuated to advance the 'cause' of evolution. To date, there is no actual physical scientific evidence that proves ANY of the claims laid out by evolution, and the theory of evolution fails to address a huge issue that I'll get to in a bit.

Today's evolutionary theory hinges on the idea that over vast periods of time, biological organisms "morph" into entirely new and unique species. McScientists, whose academic careers depend on keeping bad theories alive even if they know they're full of sh1t, claim that adaptation is proof of evolution.

Some claims made as "proof" of evolution:

Adaptation
Adaptation is when a particular species gains or loses some physical features in response to environmental conditions...the changes are generally subtle, such as changes to their color, larger or smaller teeth, limbs, etc. Adaptation is not one species morphing into another - this has never been observed (because it doesn't happen naturally). As far as bacteria and viruses go, they adapt. If they evolved, we'd be sick a lot more often than we are right now.

Cellular / Molecular Similarity
Many claim that similarities in genetic material among species and/or life containing similar physical elements suggests they all "evolved" from the same seed. It's a huge reach that will always be out of grasp. Think of it in terms of vehicles - a car, a boat and a plane can all be built from similar materials. They can even share many of the same internal components...but they're all unique vehicles. A plane is not a version of a car that flies, nor is a boat a version of car that can float over water. Each vehicle was distinctly engineered and built to serve a specific purpose. It's much the same with life on this planet. The fact that they "share parts" does in no way prove or even suggest that they all originated from the same singular lifeform.

Where evolution fails huge:

One-Off Iteration
The mechanism by which evolution happens is "random mutations", some which prove to be advantages and others liabilities. Here's the problem. If these random mutations happen to one out of every million, how many times can that one mutated species mate, and supposing that the mutation did result in an entirely new species, what assurance is there that the new species could mate with the "inferior" species? There's not, it's just assumed to be possible...yet a house cat and a lion cannot mate. Interesting, since they're both cats. Another flaw is that if the changes are occurring over millions of years, and as one-offs, then the magnitude of the changes can only ever be incremental. A radically different one-off wouldn't survive even if it did have distinct advantages.

Anyway, let's say we did end up with a few thousand mutated versions of a particular creature, what happens to all the rest that preceded it? Seems that the working theory is that version 2.0 obsoletes 1.0, and 1.0 goes extinct. That's another elongated stretch with zero supporting science. If humans are version 10 of primates, why do we still have monkeys on the planet? If big cats came from little cats, why are there still little cats? Do you really find this to be more of a logical reason than the idea that life on this planet was created, or better yet, engineered?

Humans
Humans supposedly "evolved" from apes but here's the problem. Humans are by far the most intelligent creatures on this planet AND they have the physical capacity to use said intellect to directly affect their environment. While ALL other life on this planet has allegedly evolved over eons to what they are today, somehow humans - in a far shorter timespan - have managed to evolve a brain that vastly surpasses ALL OTHER LIFE. How is it possible that evolution has been so incremental over time for all other lifeforms, yet when it comes to humans, they gain such a huge advantage over everything?

One thing we can observe about unmolested natural ecosystems is a kind of balance between predators and prey. Even the apex predators are not leaps-and-bounds above the base of the food pyramid, and as far as intelligence goes, the range among most wildlife fits into a narrow channel regardless of who or what they eat.

Human intellect cannot be passed off as evolution because it's simply too much of a biological advantage to fit the paradigm of nature. Nothing can compete with us because wherever we fall short physically, we can build a machine to fill the gap. What other lifeform on earth, for all of the history that life has existed on earth, was able to build a machine of any kind? None.

What's my take?

Very simple: Evolution is bogus. It's leftist nonsense created and perpetuated by academic elites who wanted to undermine the grasp that religion had on the minds of the masses so they could replace it with their own clutch. It's believable enough so that non-thinkers buy into it and have an excuse to mock the ignorant fools sticking to their creation stories.

The truth is far more likely that life on earth was engineered, or created, by some other beings. I don't think it was god and I don't think it was just one being. I do think that it's far more plausible that Earth itself is a sort of science project for some other species of intelligent life. I also think that whatever created us is not monolithic; it's a coalition of sorts with their own internal squabbles and politics - which could explain some of the "unexplained" phenomenon.

So in reality, the stories of the bible are far more likely to line up with the truth than the junk science pushed by educated idiots. Consider that the people who wrote the bible had no language to describe a high-tech life form that had the ability to perform advance genetic engineering. It would certainly seem to them as god-like, and it makes sense that whoever created us would want to interact with us for the first years, gradually diminishing their presence as we grow on our own. I think that part of their experiment is to see what we do without their guidance.




RE: The Evolution of Junk Science
By hypocrisyforever on 11/30/2015 12:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
TL:DR

Thank you, come again.


RE: The Evolution of Junk Science
By drycrust3 on 12/1/2015 4:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
Is that the best argument you have? You can't even be bothered standing up for the very theory you claim to be an advocate for.


RE: The Evolution of Junk Science
By drycrust3 on 12/1/2015 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent! Don't agree with the end, but that doesn't detract it from being a very good explanation.
Science requires proponents of a theory to defend it with science.


So silly
By jdre on 11/25/2015 8:33:10 AM , Rating: 2
Red cups and google doodles - these are the major attacks on belief systems?

The google doodle (as it always does) commemorated the anniversary of something - Lucy (and also, it seems, the publication of The Origin of Species, btw).

It's not (and never is) an advertisement for a school of thought. This wasn't a statement, even, of "hey everyone, believe in evolution." It was just "hey everyone, something historical happened on this date."

When will the Christian Right (which is neither Christian nor right) learn that the louder they bark at insignificant events, the crazier they sound?




RE: So silly
By therealnickdanger on 11/25/2015 9:39:43 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Red cups and google doodles - these are the major attacks on belief systems?


A couple people on twitter (popular or otherwise) do not represent mainstream beliefs of a religious group. A more likely scenario is that a random liberal media outlet saw the red cups/google doodle and thought "I bet we can make a clickbait article about how angry it makes conservatives or religious people. Quick, to the tweets for 'research'!"

Straw Man complete.

If we're labeling things, then I'm a "Christian conservative" that believes in creatio ex nihilo, but I don't see that as being at odds with scientific theory. Likewise, the latter can't inform us on how to live with each other. Logically, there can be no distinction between good and evil without a higher authority, beyond humanity. Left up only to human opinion or desire, with no belief in a higher moral authority, morality will always decline toward "what feels good" to the populace or those in power.

You can choose to believe in life after death or not. You can choose to believe that there is justice beyond our own idea of it, that wicked in this life are punished in the afterlife and the good are shown mercy, or you can believe that nothing happens and this life is all there is and there are no consequences other than dying or going to jail.

Some people have used this argument to coerce people to choosing salvation against the threat of punishment, but I think the more important question is: do you hope that there is truly nothing or do you hope for eternal justice from an authority beyond our own? The answer to the that question says a lot more about a person's character and worldview than whether or not he believes we descended from apes.


Why do you care about what creationists think?
By corduroygt on 11/25/2015 9:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
They're just like 9/11 truthers or moon landing hoaxers, a fringe crazy group that should be ignored.




By phxfreddy on 11/26/2015 10:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
Please include the "Glo-Bull Warmers" in that!


There you go again (sigh)...
By Dorkyman on 11/25/2015 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, do you have ants in your pants or something? Why is this a relevant story?

But since I'm replying, I might as well put in my two cents:

I find it funny how lots of folks here are so angry about "religion" and how crazy it is that anyone could believe in the various creeds. Fine, but understand that EVERYONE believes in something, that is, some way to describe that which cannot be described. Okay, so the old farts called the indescribable "Yahweh" and others called it "God." Whatever.

Couldn't give a rat's ass if tradition passed down stories about people turning into pillars of salt, or a giant boat saved the inhabitants from death. The leaders of the culture were simply passing on basic Codes of Conduct. Don't kill. Don't mess with your neighbor's wife.

Do I believe there is a guy with a beard up in the clouds? Of course not. But I can tell you that from a very early age I realized as an amateur astronomer that there was something I simply could not wrap my mind around. Just look at outer space and the unimaginable distances involved, the unimaginable numbers of stars. No go the opposite direction. What are we made of? What are those molecules made of? What are those atoms made of? What are those particles made of? Then what are THOSE pieces made of? And what are THOSE made of?

Mind-blowing. That's my definition of "God."




RE: There you go again (sigh)...
By phxfreddy on 11/26/2015 10:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
You waste your time with the fanbois wannabees that populate this site and the failed doctoral candidates that write here.

They have dogma that is every bit as dogmatic as the catholic church but lack the self awareness to perceive it.


people
By p05esto on 11/25/2015 6:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
Some people will believe anything. If you take an ipad apart and shake the parts around in a box for a trillion years it will NEVER turn into an ipad. All things degrade over time, never build themselves. NEVER. That box of parts will sooner become a pile of dust than turn into an ipad. Evolution is an insane theory believed by high and mighty scientists that are drunk on their intelligence and prominence. "The wisdom of earthling man is foolishness to God."




RE: people
By martin5000 on 11/26/2015 8:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
So stupid.


Oh the irony!
By Manch on 11/30/2015 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 1
Has anyone noticed how amusing this is? An article about a small group of religious zealots showing their intolerance and bitching about the google logo. The responses in the comments section has largely been a small group of atheist showing their intolerance and bitching about all religions.




RE: Oh the irony!
By tng on 12/2/2015 5:43:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
An article about a small group of religious zealots showing their intolerance and bitching... ...responses in the comments section has largely been a small group of atheist showing their intolerance


Summed up quite nicely and yes the irony is apparent.

One thing I have never understood is why people don't separate religion from god or God. Like many people here I was forced for many years to go to church every Sunday and what I learned from that was that if you need to talk to God, you don't need a church to do it.

Why would anybody belong to a any religion?


RE: Oh the irony!
By Manch on 12/3/2015 9:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
My father grew up Baptist, my mother Catholic. I have some relatives that are Buddhist, Jewish and a some that are Muslim, others atheist. We all get along quite well and even joke about the differences.

All have their dogma. I leaned primarily towards Catholicism as I got older and as I realized the very political nature of it all I veered towards Orthodoxy which basically the same with the exception that Rome is not the church of churches. The Catholic Church is the largest government in the world if you think about it. Thats another topic though.

While I do find some comfort in the dogma, superstitions and what not, I agree that I dont need a church to talk to God if I so choose. Still I do enjoy the community that attending church brings.

In regards to evolution, I don't dismiss it, I actually find it fascinating, but I do not believe it as fact. Its a theory and like all theories, it should be treated with respectful skepticism.


Doesnt matter what you believe
By araxian on 12/2/2015 11:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
What you "believe" or don't doesn't matter be christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist makes no difference.

Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore independent of religion.

a lot of researchers in the field, have very deeply held beliefs but doesn't stop them from their work and know their results are fact , the best explanation i heard was from a deeply christian researcher that when asked if his work contradicts his beliefs, he said no I am trying to understand god thru my work.

There is a fairly simple experiment you can do to prove the theory.

Take a bacteria the exact one doesn't matter as long as it has a short 24hrs or less life cyle(so it doesn't take months or years to do) 2 batches 1 control you do nothing to, the other expose it small doses of a antibiotic, increasing slightly with each generation. Then leave them alone for a few generations.

Once this is complete, then expose both the control and the exposed to the same amount of antibiotic higher than the last dose given to the exposed.

results the control will have a near 100% mortaility, the exposed will have less than 20%. the exact numbers depend on the exact bacteria used etc, as some bacteria already have some resistance or none and the number of generations.

the reason for the is you have forced the exposed batch to evolve, for each generation you exposed only the ones that resisted the exposure survive, so the next generation more will survive and reproduce etc until eventually if you carry it on long enough they will be mostly immune to that antibiotic.
Though it only provides the effect to the antibiotic you used to expose the bacterial colony and to a lesser degree its relatives

This is how you get bacterial infections like MRSA etc

this is simple and provable, the same holds true for more complex organisms, it just takes a significantly longer period of time.




By drycrust3 on 12/8/2015 5:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the Theory of Evolution is a theory, and if you want to call it a scientific theory, then I guess you could, although it isn't very scientific theory. It has hardly any hard evidence to support it. For example, it uses the notion of "a simple cell", but in fact cells are very very complex, they even have DNA inside them, which alone is inconsistent with the Theory of Evolution. Darwin didn't even predict DNA.
Another example is the Theory of Evolution relies on successive layers of sediment that were deposited during one of the Mass Extinction events as evidence to support it, but these layers were all deposited within a short period of time, not over millions of years, and there were more different species alive prior to the Mass Extinction event than afterwards, which is a sure sign the Theory of Evolution doesn't actually work. If there was some validity to the theory of Evolution then wouldn't the amount of species alive keep growing? But it doesn't, it keeps shrinking.
The layers, which are supposed to show the effects of Evolution with time, were deposited too quickly for any evolution to have taken place, which makes that part of the theory redundant. And how can there be more species alive before the Mass Extinction event than afterwards? Only by having all the species alive at the start of the world, and no Evolution at all!
See, the scientific evidence is consistent with what the Creationists primary text says, and is inconsistent with Darwin's theory of Evolution.
Creationists believe there was just one Mass Extinction event, not several, but whether there was one or several, the fact remains the number of species alive prior to the first was about 10 times that now living.
As I mentioned earlier, the so called stages of "Evolution of man" look exactly like the stages a person goes through as they age, except the stages shown in text books are shown from right to left, not left to right as one normally expects.


Godwin's Law...
By Manch on 11/25/2015 12:25:26 PM , Rating: 3
While I'll agree that people getting upset over red cups or what google has made their logo look like for the day is idiotic, I do think comparing creationist to Daesh is a stretch and a half.

It's about as absurd as every other issue that comes out where people are likened to Nazi's aka Godwin's Law.

And what in the hell does this have to do with tech?




Goo?gle
By asd123456 on 11/25/2015 6:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
...and there I was, miffed that there was an "extra letter" in Google.




Creationism is satire
By BurnItDwn on 11/27/2015 10:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
There might be bbelievers, but, the vast majority people who claim to be creationists are trolls. The vast amount of required willful ignorance is beyond most peoples threshold.




High Priorities
By drycrust3 on 11/29/2015 3:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Today ...

I recently saw a news clip, and a recent article on the Guardian website, that today the American NSA's right to collect telephony metadata was cancelled. Considering the importance of this issue, and whether the collection actually ceases or not, I would have thought that it was more important than an image Google happens to use on their search engine.
Of course, you are quite within your rights to discuss Evolution and how it is perceived around the world, and to portray people who oppose Evolution as lacking intelligence. That right exists because religious people, who believed in Creation by God, wrote into the American Constitution the right to freedom of speech.
However, I would have thought the cancelling of the metadata collection program would have been more important, especially as the author of this article has posted articles on that subject a number of times, and often the articles were very long, but apparently not.
Talking on Evolution for a moment, a year or two back I happened to see a picture in a school science book that portrayed Evolution, and it showed a stooped humaniod, then, to the right, next to it was one less stooped, and the one next to it almost standing upright, then one standing upright, and finally a person representing Homo sapiens, who looked like a typical teenager. This is how science represents Evolution and the creation of mankind.
The interesting thing about this series of images was if you reversed the order, so you viewed it from right to left, then you got a more or less typical idea of the effects of ageing upon the average human being, so the teenager was the one with the most fit and strong body, while the others showed the deterioration caused by ageing, until finally you got to a very elderly person who was stooped with age and body affected by arthritis.
So the evidence for Evolution is actually evidence for ageing.




High Priorities
By drycrust3 on 11/29/2015 3:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Today ...

I recently saw a news clip, and a recent article on the Guardian website, that today the American NSA's right to collect telephony metadata was cancelled. Considering the importance of this issue, and whether the collection actually ceases or not, I would have thought that it was more important than an image Google happens to use on their search engine.
Of course, you are quite within your rights to discuss Evolution and how it is perceived around the world, and to portray people who oppose Evolution as lacking intelligence. That right exists because religious people, who believed in Creation by God, wrote into the American Constitution the right to freedom of speech.
However, I would have thought the cancelling of the metadata collection program would have been more important, especially as the author of this article has posted articles on that subject a number of times, and often the articles were very long, but apparently not.
Talking on Evolution for a moment, a year or two back I happened to see a picture in a school science book that portrayed Evolution, and it showed a stooped humaniod, then, to the right, next to it was one less stooped, and the one next to it almost standing upright, then one standing upright, and finally a person representing Homo sapiens, who looked like a typical teenager. This is how science represents Evolution and the creation of mankind.
The interesting thing about this series of images was if you reversed the order, so you viewed it from right to left, then you got a more or less typical idea of the effects of ageing upon the average human being, so the teenager was the one with the most fit and strong body, while the others showed the deterioration caused by ageing, until finally you got to a very elderly person who was stooped with age and body affected by arthritis.
So the evidence for Evolution is actually evidence for ageing.




By ndallari on 11/30/2015 12:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
Creationist shouldn't believe in the internet either since we have no evidence that it was created or approved by a God.
We do know that the internet has grown and improved through the evolution of technology.




A Great ADO
By RZ Chard on 11/30/2015 1:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
..about nothing.




Integrity slipping away...
By rbuszka on 12/22/2015 10:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
More anti-religious sniping from DailyTech's editorial staff -- it really makes me sad. I remember when this was a tech news site with integrity, and not a platform for political and religious polemics from editors treating this place like a personal blog. I really wish you would stay on topic.




Typo
By Gondor on 11/25/2015 2:23:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Rather, man and apes share a common answer.


Ancestor perhaps? Spellcheckers are evil.




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs



Latest Headlines



Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM







botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki