backtop


Print 164 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Jun 7 at 11:34 AM


Ardipithecus ramidus  (Source: Science/AAAS)

There is debate over what exactly the habitat of Ardi, a "missing link" ancestor of man, was and whether Ardi was truly a hominid.  (Source: Science/AAAS)
Scientists welcome healthy debate; creationists cheer opportunity to attack discovery

The publication of the groundbreaking Ardipithecus ramidus, or "Ardi", skeleton in 2009 was one of the most important scientific discoveries of its closing decade.  The skeleton offered new insight into the evolutionary path of man.  It also provoked a great deal of debate, both scientific and theological as such a find might be expected to.

Now two commentaries have been published debating the accuracy of two of the key conclusions of the original study [published here] -- Ardi's place on the evolutionary tree and the habitat that it lived in.

The first study is the less controversial, in that it merely argues that rather than a forest habitat, as the original study suggests, that Ardi instead lived in savanna.  Thure E. Cerling, a geochemist at the University of Utah, spearheaded this work which is published here as a comment in the journal 
Science.

In the comment, Cerling writes, "We find the environmental context of Ar. ramidus at Aramis to be represented by what is commonly referred to as tree- or bush-savanna, with 25 percent or less woody canopy cover."

Key to Cerling's claim is the fact that Ardi was found with less woody plant matter than is typically expected from a dense forest.  And historical theory favors Cerling's claims, as scientists have long argued that hominids (including man) evolved in a savanna setting, likely in Africa.

White's team has published a response in 
Science arguing against this perspective and defending its original assertions that Ardi lived in a woody setting.  White writes that Cerling's comment failed to account "the totality of the fossil, geological and geochemical evidence."  Key to White's argument are other mammal fossils found alongside Ardi that were creatures which typically lived in denser forest.

Esteban E. Sarmiento of the Human Evolution Foundation in East Brunswick, N.J., by contrast, offered up a more controversial challenge.  He claims that Ardi was not a hominid -- a creature in the evolutionary path that gave rise to modern chimpanzees and man.  He claims Ardi, which lived 4.4 million years ago, "predates the human/African ape divergence."

Sarmiento's criticism is published here.  The claims were promptly refuted by White's team, which argues that they fail "to recognize as significant the multiple and independent features of the Ardipithecus cranium, dentition and skeleton."  White's rebuttal also comments that they use outdated biomolecular evidence and that current evidence pushes the data of hominid/ape divergence from 3 to 5 million years ago back to 6 million years ago.

Such debate is absolutely business as usual for such a high profile work.  And if there's one common thread between the critics and original authors, it's that they both agree that the biochemical and fossil evidence clearly points to evolution giving rise to humans.  The debate is merely on the path that was taken, where the fossil fall on that path, and what the environment those historical creatures lived in.

Creationists have quickly latched on to this healthy scientific debate as signs of "flaws" in evolutionary theory.  As one critic commenting on a 
CBS story on Ardi comments, "[Well], just more evidence for the growing stack of evidence that the theory of evolution is bogus. But of course the knowledgeable knew that long ago."



Comments     Threshold


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

Creation vs Evolution
By phattyboombatty on 6/1/2010 5:52:35 PM , Rating: 5
Has Jason Mick ever posted an article involving evolution where he didn't try to bait posters into debating evolution vs. creationism?




RE: Creation vs Evolution
By carniver on 6/1/2010 6:06:57 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe apes evolved into humans but nobody ever said a troll will evolve to a human.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Myg on 6/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By niaaa on 6/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By quiksilvr on 6/2/2010 2:13:55 PM , Rating: 1
I could say the same thing about this article. Maybe there should be an Alt DailyTech?


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 11:06:43 AM , Rating: 5
Using a guilt by association fallacy adds a lot to yours as well.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 11:13:17 AM , Rating: 4
Another guilt by association fallacy. Care to go for three?


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 11:19:43 AM , Rating: 5
Impressive with a third! I'm not a creationist. Sorry.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 12:45:34 PM , Rating: 4
But you WOULD care if he were Sarah Palin.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 2:30:54 PM , Rating: 1
Well I'd be laughing harder.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 2:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose forced laughter is still laughing.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By tigz1218 on 6/2/2010 8:47:50 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe there is no evolution at all. Maybe it's just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 11:07:28 AM , Rating: 2
Bingo.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Duwelon on 6/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By jahwarrior on 6/3/2010 1:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
Cheers.....


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By B3an on 6/3/2010 5:08:43 AM , Rating: 1
I'm so glad i live in a civilised country and not JesusLand (U.S).


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By FaceMaster on 6/3/2010 11:37:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
if a certain number of articles about evolution are published, then the probability of evolution being real goes up!


Does spreading Christianity across the globe make it more likely to be true?


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By bissimo on 6/1/2010 6:29:20 PM , Rating: 5
Can posting an article about evolution on a tech forum be anything more than baiting?


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By jdsal on 6/1/2010 8:41:29 PM , Rating: 5
If I encountered any tech who would argue for creationism he/she would have to fired immediately.

Seriously though this is a matter of pitting science against mythology. At least in science you are required to demonstrate an equation or produce evidence to support your position whereas in mythology and/or religion so long as the creator says so it cannot be argued.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By inighthawki on 6/1/2010 9:34:19 PM , Rating: 4
That's a little harsh. I have nothing against someone believing in creationism so long as they don't try to push it on others, but religion is based on faith, not science. The problem with religion vs science is that religion cannot be "disproved" since you can only provide evidence for something's existence.

With that in mind, though, firing someone on the grounds that they believe something different than you, no matter what it is or how ridiculous it sounds to you is just plain wrong. I believe in evolution, I know someone who believes in creationism, but to be completely fair, neither of us may be right. Evolution is only a theory, and it has supporting evidence. It has not been proven. In the same sense, you cannot completely discredit an idea because someone has no proof, it is, again, just a theory.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Fiendish on 6/1/2010 10:04:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem with religion vs science is that religion cannot be "disproved" since you can only provide evidence for something's existence.


This is mostly true for Deism but certainly not for Theism. If the Christian god existed he would affect the world in observable ways. These effects are not observed so you can rightly state that he does not exist.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By inighthawki on 6/1/2010 10:45:19 PM , Rating: 5
Just FYI, a lack of evidence in favor of something's existence is NOT evidence against its existence.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By someguy123 on 6/1/2010 11:01:11 PM , Rating: 5
Lack of evidence is not necessarily proof of nonexistence, but then again this can't be misconstrued into proof of existence, either. The existence is merely an unproven theory that cannot be proven, and therefore is worth less than provable theories.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Solandri on 6/2/2010 3:00:26 AM , Rating: 4
That's the "problem" with science. Its fundamental principles limit it to only observable phenomena. If something is not observable (cannot be cajoled into making an observable reaction), then science is unable to say anything about it. No doubt something exists past the event horizon of a black hole, or beyond the observable edge of the expanding universe. But since they can't be observed, science can't tell us what's there. Science can speculate, theorize, make educated guesses, but unless these regions somehow turn out to be observable, any theories about what's there are, as you put it, "worth less than provable theories" even though they are founded on science. (I put "problem" in quotes because within the context of the observable universe which we inhabit and live in, it presents no problems.)

The same problem crops up in mathematics. Gödel basically came up with a mathematical proof that not everything could be proven true or false mathematically. That within a given finite set of self-consistent logical axioms, there will always be something which is unprovable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incomp...

Logically, science teaches us about the observable and has no opinion about the unobservable. Religion teaches us (or if you prefer, purports to teach us) about the unobservable, and IMHO is frequently misapplied to the observable. While some of the things creationists come up with is rubbish (n.b. I am religious), you can't use science to dismiss religion entirely. To do that, you have to make the assumption that everything which exists is observable.

Personally I don't see much difference between a belief that everything is observable and belief in a Creator. They are both leaps of faith which cannot be proven nor disproven by science. Perhaps the former is more compliant with Occam's Razor. But the Razor only says that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one, not that it must be.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By FITCamaro on 6/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Connoisseur on 6/2/2010 8:33:34 AM , Rating: 5
I was with you up until the last couple of paragraphs. Just a couple of items i need to refute.
1) We do NOT use only 10% of our brain. This was a common myth spurned by the media and other sources to explain our "untapped" potential (psychic ability, any sort of "kinesis" etc). There is no such potential in our brain as it currently exists. Snopes has a great article on this:
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
2) I find it funny that so many people believe humans are the peak of evolution. No doubt our minds allow us to accomplish amazing things. Our bodies though? Absolutely nothing to write home about. Relatives to other species that have come and gone, we're about as fragile as they come. It is only by the grace of our ability to work in groups that humans have survived all these millenia.In addition, there's no "beyond" our current forms with evolution; this implies some higher (divine) goal to the process. From what i understand, the only "goal" is, hopefully, the survival of the species by any means necessary.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 12:40:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I find it funny that so many people believe humans are the peak of evolution.

In a lot of ways we are. The deficiencies of our bodies have been more than compensated by our powers of reason and rationality. No other species has as much direct control over their environment than we do. We often change our environment faster than it can change us, and in that regard we've removed ourselves from many historical evolutionary influences.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By xthetenth on 6/5/2010 6:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
Our bodies aren't that deficient. We have tons of endurance, which is great when you have the brainpower to make and execute a plan, since it allows you to run your prey into the ground. It's mostly that we're specialized for a different method of hunting than most other animals.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By overzealot on 6/2/2010 8:43:22 AM , Rating: 1
In answer to your first question:
Look around you.
Is everyone the same height, shape, colour?
I think there's plenty of observable evolutionary processes without digging too deep.

In answer to your second question:
We don't know exactly how much of our brains we use, have used, will use. 10% was pulled out of the air around a century ago.
It's kinda like asking how full the internet is.
PS, feel free to lobotomise yourself, if you think all that excess weight is holding you back.

In answer to the rest of your post:
Scientists in general do not take much interest in people who take photographs of ghosts.
This is because, as a rule, they are usually intentional hoaxes.
Occaisionally they are double exposures or glare, but those circumstances do little to prove/disprove ghosts.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 12:44:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
10% was pulled out of the air around a century ago.

It gets perpetuated by scans of cerebral activity that often show only a small portion of the brain displaying significant activity at any one time; ignoring that we don't use all our brain all the time.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By overzealot on 6/3/2010 11:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I don't believe anyone has proven that we use exactly 10%.
And I agree that the scans only show small brain activity at any time, but between brain scans it's not the same sections of the brain active.
Remember that we change which sections of our brain which are in use while we sleep, and there is evidence that information is piped around.

Also, brain cells which are not in use (ie, aren't showing in scans) are still often actively synthesizing chemicals, so whilst you aren't thinking WITH them, they can affect your thinking.

We still don't fully understand the human brain, throwing around useless figures like 10% only helps to maintain urban myths.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Quadrillity on 6/2/2010 3:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Take a look at the RNC cult followers, they don't use any.


*he says while praying to his Obama shrine...


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 11:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
I did not vote for Obama, not that this improves your pathetic standing in any case.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Iaiken on 6/2/2010 4:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
To expand upon this, the problem is further complicated by our ability to observe and measure forces, space, time and matter. No matter what we do, all of our answers are, at best, reasonable approximations.

This is especially true when we work with measurements of scale which approach the outer threshold of observability. In these areas of science almost all work that is done cannot be said to be absolutely definitive. Rather, that the work that is resultant from these approximate values supports the theory are within an allowable margin of error.

An entire area science has bloomed concerning approximation and becomes more and more relevant as scientists seek to understand the building blocks and forces of our universe.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/2/2010 12:12:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just FYI, a lack of evidence in favor of something's existence is NOT evidence against its existence.


Agreed, that's why I'm keeping my hopes up that there's some stray Kraken, sasquatches, or perhaps even unicorns out there.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By BladeVenom on 6/2/2010 2:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By nafhan on 6/2/2010 8:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
There was a sasquatch article on the front page of the Washington Post this past weekend... It made me wonder if the editors were all on vacation for Memorial Day.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 2:25:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is mostly true for Deism but certainly not for Theism. If the Christian god existed he would affect the world in observable ways. These effects are not observed so you can rightly state that he does not exist.


That would only be true if he affected the observable world in a way all would be looking for. Now if this god decided to only affect the world in ways his believers could see, then to non believers there would be no effect at all, thus the lack of effect would lead the non believer to say he does not exist and the believer to say he existed.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By jdsal on 6/2/2010 12:11:19 AM , Rating: 3
Taking on the basis of creationism in a literal sense, as most do, does not stand up to basic scrutiny and logic of the natural world. I think it can be argued somewhat to take the story of creation as a metaphor, but believers in creationism take in the story as is, which to me is nonsense.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By piroroadkill on 6/2/2010 8:32:12 AM , Rating: 4
Faith most definitely can be disproved. Miracles explained away. Repeatable experiments, hard facts, replacing what was previously just belief pulled out of thin air.

There's nothing untouchable about faith, rather that people with faith stand their ground in ignorance.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 3:41:04 PM , Rating: 3
Can you prove that God didn't exist five minutes before the Big Bang?


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By morphologia on 6/2/2010 3:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
Can you prove He exists at all?


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
Question isn't whether or not I can prove God exists, but if as the previous poster said faith can be disproved.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By morphologia on 6/2/2010 5:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
And just why is that the question? Because it's horribly subject to opinion and interpretation as opposed to fact and evidence?

Ostensibly, finding a natural explanation for something drastically reduces the likelihood that there is a supernatural explanation. While this is not "disproving faith" per se, it certainly weights the argument in favor of science when science has hard fact and evidence and faith has nothing but "because I said so."


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By wolrah on 6/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Creation vs Evolution
By maroon1 on 6/3/2010 3:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evolution is only a theory , and it has supporting evidence. It has not been proven. In the same sense, you cannot completely discredit an idea because someone has no proof, it is, again, just a theory .


List of common misconceptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_miscon...

"The word theory in the theory of evolution does not insinuate doubt from mainstream science regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles which explain observable phenomena in natural terms.[90][91] Evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or plate tectonics"

Also read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evoluti...


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Quadrillity on 6/3/2010 3:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
So you use Wikipedia as a source? LOL pure comedy right there! You do understand that all material about the religion of Evolution is inherently biased right?


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By maroon1 on 6/3/2010 5:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know how to use google and find what the word "theory" means in science ?

And almost everything on wikipedia is referenced by outside news articles (references are listed in brackets e.g [1], [2])


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 11:43:21 AM , Rating: 2
So you still think Wikipedia is in any way credible on the subject of religion? You are delusional.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By maroon1 on 6/4/2010 2:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
Note 1: I was talking about the definition of "scientific theory". I was NOT talking about religion or evolution.

Note 2: I told you that wikipedia is referenced by outside articles. Did you look at those articles ? No

Note 3: I told you to look for the definition of theory in science using google. Did you do that ? No

Anyway here are some websites that tells you the definition of scientific theory, which is different from non-scientific theory
http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0308/theo/ind...
http://www.notjustatheory.com/


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 3:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was NOT talking about religion or evolution.

The embedded topic was about whether or not evolution was a theory, religion, or truth; therefor using any kind of resource from wikipedia (or any publication for that matter) is moot. That's like having a discussion about Christianity and using (insert random atheist author's book title) for supporting material.

quote:
Note 2: I told you that wikipedia is referenced by outside articles. Did you look at those articles ? No

I understand how wikipedia works you moron.
quote:
Note 3: I told you to look for the definition of theory in science using google. Did you do that ? No

You are starting to look really childish. Going to call me a doo-doo head next?


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2010 6:07:16 AM , Rating: 4
Way to show yourself to be a complete idiot then. Because someone having faith means they're a complete dumb@ss and not able to do the job right?

One of my best friends who just got laid off at my work is a very strong believer and incredibly intelligent. I wish I had the kind of faith he did to believe that everything will be ok because a God endowed it to be so. Would sure take a lot of worry off my shoulders with whats happening in the US and around the world.

Point is, you're an idiot.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2010 6:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
PS - He has done plenty of research in his spare time looking into the claims of evolution and in his mind, they don't stack up.

If you fired someone for their beliefs, I would certainly love to see the pending litigation brought down on you. Someone having faith is no reason to fire them.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By piroroadkill on 6/2/2010 8:33:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure in the US you can fire for no reason at all


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 10:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
Negative.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

quote:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 10:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
Those are reasons. You can fire for no reason.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 10:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh I misunderstood the statement.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
One might note however that declining to state a reason for dismissal doesn't automatically protect a company if there is reason to suspect that religion/race/etc is behind the firing.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 11:08:32 AM , Rating: 2
Everything they do is for a reason, but you bypass all laws by simply stating you have no reason.

Age discrimination runs rampant. Bypassing the law is quite simple.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 11:12:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
you bypass all laws by simply stating you have no reason.


That's incorrect. If I can reasonably prove that I was fired for one of the above mentioned reasons the law still applies, regardless of the official reason (or lack thereof) I was let go.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 11:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
Actually all you need do in court is to prove you did not single out old people for firing. It's done this way.

1. You want to fire 10 old people.
2. You hire 20 younger people.
3. You wait a while.
4. You fire 10 old people and 10 younger people.
5. You now have "reasonable doubt."

So yes you can win a suit if you can reasonably prove discrimination, but here you can't reasonably prove it.

You can even hire 30+ younger people and then fire more younger people than old people, but in the end you accomplish your goal. It may seem expensive, but it's nothing compared to a CEO's bonus.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 11:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So yes you can win a suit if you can reasonably prove discrimination


Thanks for agreeing with me.

PS: I never claimed it was impossible to skirt the law.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 11:36:26 AM , Rating: 1
It's the same old story, large corporations do whatever they want whenever they want. Laws are only for the little people.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 11:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
There is that wonderful saying of "it's only illegal if you get caught", although that line of thinking is hardly exclusive to large corporations.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 1:02:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Laws are only for the little people.

Little people break laws all the time. Exceeding the speed limit is fairly common; as is cheating on taxes. Ask Wesley Snipes if he thinks he can get away with cheating on his taxes.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 2:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
AKA Laws apply to little people and they pay the price, corporations just continue.

Of course you have to have a government that actually enforces any laws against corporations. Yeah good luck with that.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 2:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AKA Laws apply to little people and they pay the price

You didn't read what I wrote: Little people get away with breaking the law constantly. Heck, I got away with breaking the law just this morning. Did it probably a dozen times yesterday. I'm nobody. There's just MORE little people than corporations, thus the reasonable conclusion is that we'd hear about the little people far more often.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 2:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
Then go look at how many off shore subsidies Halliburton created after draft dodger Cheney because CEO.

You're just proving my point. People pay, corporations just laugh.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 2:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then go look at how many off shore subsidies Halliburton created

It's illegal to create off shore subsidies?

If you're going to assert that corporations can flagrantly violate the law, you should provide examples of actual violations of the law.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 11:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose the leaky oil rig in the gulf took all required precautions, gag cough spit.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By elgueroloco on 6/4/2010 5:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
And your point is?

We've yet to hear the last of this oil rig matter. I can almost guarantee somebody will go to jail over this, and BP will pay out the nose money-wise.

Commenting on an event that is still unfolding as though it has already concluded is just asinine.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By nafhan on 6/2/2010 8:20:25 AM , Rating: 3
Make sure they don't know why they're being fired... I think firing someone based on their beliefs might get you in a little bit of trouble. Seriously, though. If they're doing a good job, why would you care? I've known both IT and non-technical people who believe some pretty nutty stuff, but as long as they don't bother people at work with it and their work is getting done...


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Jellodyne on 6/2/2010 11:09:04 AM , Rating: 4
Lack of coherent reasoning skills is a reason.

Say you walk into my workshop and I show you an intricately carved wooden figure. I've got a workbench covered with cruder and cruder prototypes. I've got wood carving tools, rasps, jigs, saws and watnot hung up on pegs ans scattered across my work area. The floor and the air is thick with sawdust. You look at my carved figure and say "Wow! You made this with magic?! You must have because my parents taught me carpentry doesn't exist."

I'd say that's a sign of a broken mental process.

I don't care whether you subscribe it to random luck over millions of years or a Creator who uses efficient working methods, the methods have been laid bare. We can clearly see how God works with life. To refute evolution at this point can be nothing but willful ignorance. And if its God's guiding hand working the evolutionary process then by rejecting the truth you're rejecting God and choosing to know God less than you could otherwise.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By nafhan on 6/2/2010 3:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to go ahead and say you're wrong. Strong belief and "lack of coherent reasoning skills" don't go hand in hand. Often times, it just means the person in question hasn't applied those reasoning skills to certain aspects of their lives. Other times, the person in question will have a different set of input data leading to different logical conclusions. I'm sure you don't make optimal decisions based on perfect data for all aspects of your life and beliefs, and this probably leads to you making decisions and believing things that others would strongly disagree with.
Anyway, if you fire someone for having a "broken mental process" and your only evidence is their religious beliefs, you'll get sued. Also, forming a complete opinion about someone while only knowing one aspect of their life seems a bit narrowminded and elitist, and automatically dismissing people over something like that will eventually get you in trouble (personal if not legal), if you do it in real life and not just on internet message boards.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Jellodyne on 6/2/2010 5:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
You're 100% correct -- not believing in evolution could be due to a high degree of ignorance, rather than faulty reasoning.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By Shadowmaster625 on 6/2/2010 3:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
You admit to firing someone based on refusal to accept dogmatic beliefs? Explain the flagellum motor before you go spreading your ignorance.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By jahwarrior on 6/3/2010 1:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly is the mathematic equation for evolution? Give me the equation that produces life come on Jdsal you have to know with that huge smug brain of yours...

"the sole law of chance" says evolution is mathematically impossible. There is your faith and mythology


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By snyper256 on 6/1/2010 11:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
Genetic engineering, 100,000 years ago!


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By threepac3 on 6/2/2010 7:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
Genetic engineering, 1,000,000,000+ years ago! Added a couple more zeros to that for you.


RE: Creation vs Evolution
By The0ne on 6/2/2010 3:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
NO. You should know better than to even ask the question.


Creationists are such easy targets...
By sh3rules on 6/1/2010 5:50:38 PM , Rating: 1
... it's not even funny. Of course, the idea that a guy was born out of a virgin, walked on water and raised people from the dead is much more plausible. Oh, and screw the actual age of the Earth while we’re at it.




RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By abel2 on 6/1/2010 7:26:06 PM , Rating: 3
It's all in how you read it. It is a long story after all. If you take everything in the bible word for word you are an idiot. He could have walked on frozen water or perhaps did what these guys are doing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ or maybe he did just walk on water.

As for the virgin thing, there is much debate that the word 'almah' from the Hebrew actually means young woman and not virgin.

And not once in the bible does it claim the age of the Earth.

Not all creationists are stupid raving lunatics. Some are quite intelligent and not so ignorant as to ignore a possible reasoning for explaining the world.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By glennc on 6/1/2010 10:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
name one!


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By Solandri on 6/2/2010 2:14:27 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
Christian =\= Creationist. "Creationist" is typically used to describe someone that believes every word of the Bible is literally true, down to the assertion that Pi is equal to exactly 3. They add up the ages of numerous prophets or notable figures to conclude that the universe is 6000 years old.

Compared to a plain ol' believer, that takes the stories told in the world's most shoplifted book as figurative: They focus on the message, the morals, with the justification that Jesus regularly spoke in parables to demonstrate lessons.

Both men you linked to lacked these "literalist" tendencies.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 4:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Christian =\= Creationist. "Creationist" is typically used to describe someone that believes every word of the Bible is literally true, down to the assertion that Pi is equal to exactly 3.


Ok I have read the Bible a lot but never found any mention of Pi equal to exactly 3, where is that found exactly?


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 5:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
There's a reference to God instructing "his people" to build an altar, exactly 1 (unit) across and exactly 3 (units) around. According to KJV and a few other versions, anyway. The language makes it very explicit that the divine expects Pi to equal exactly 3.


By clovell on 6/7/2010 11:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
Irrational numbers were not understood at all in those times - Pythagarus didn't even fully understand his own Theorem because the square root of two had little meaning to him. Besides which, specs are never written in irrational numbers - There is no blueprint for a round table with a circumference of pi - it's 3.14159.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By Looey on 6/1/2010 7:58:20 PM , Rating: 1
Have you been to the zoo lately to visit some of your realatives?


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 10:44:36 AM , Rating: 1
And since we all started from Adam and Eve we're just a race that came about through centuries of inbreeding.

Seriously, name any other group proud to proclaim "I was born yesterday!"

Duh.


By JediJeb on 6/2/2010 4:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
If you believe in evolution then you would need to believe in inbreeding just as much. Unless somehow a whole population of each species made the evolutionary jump simultaneously.

It must have been a very confusing time for the first sexual reproductive creature while they waited for the second to evolve. How did that transformation happen anyhow? Was a creature born that could not only reproduce by division but by sexual means also? Did they start with the ultimate inbreeding act of having sex with themselves until a mate came along? I really would like to see how all that happened.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2010 6:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
The age of the Earth is based on a method that has been shown to be fallible.

Now yes I tend to believe the Earth is older than 6-7000 years old. But who's to say God didn't create the world as it is? The age of the universe is one reason I tend towards intelligent design more than evolution or creationism alone.

But dismissing people solely because they believe in creationism is just as stupid as someone who is a creationist being not even willing to look at the evidence of evolution.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By Gungel on 6/2/2010 7:55:19 AM , Rating: 1
Creationism exists for one reason only to explain the unexplainable. Once we find an explanation we won't need creationism.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 11:16:48 AM , Rating: 1
"Creationism exists for one reason only to explain the unexplainable. Once we find an explanation we won't need creationism. "

Keep talking like this and the Crusaders will stone you.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By Gungel on 6/2/2010 12:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly the sad part about religion. Religion doesn't except other ideas. Therefore, just shoot the once that are not believers. It's undeniable that religion brought more evil upon us than any other idea of mankind. Just look at all the wars fought over the last millennium which brought suffering, death and doom to millions just because of a simple idea called "religion".


By Gungel on 6/2/2010 12:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
Religion doesn't accept other ideas.
Sorry, English is my second language.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 1:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's exactly the sad part about religion. Religion doesn't except other ideas.


This seems to be a rather odd statement to me. How would "religion" accept other ideas? It isn't an entity, but an idea itself. More importantly, as an idea, it can grow and evolve as man's ideas and understanding of the universe grows and evolves. After all, does the Church still teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Simply put, it is stubborn men and close minded men who do not accept new ideas.

quote:
It's undeniable that religion brought more evil upon us than any other idea of mankind.


Men are quite good at quarreling over minor differences, especially if resources and power are at stake. I find it absurd to think that men wouldn't have found other excuses to fight and commit various atrocities had religion never been invented.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By The0ne on 6/2/2010 5:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm quite certain you've just answered your own question. If religion is an idea and it can change and evolve why then do none of my Christians friend accept anything other than what they are fed? I'm referring to 0 here.

Or did my comprehension escape me and you meant to say that it can evolve, just not to any others ideas?


By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 6:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If religion is an idea and it can change and evolve why then do none of my Christians friend accept anything other than what they are fed? I'm referring to 0 here.


Probably because they are among the stubborn, close minded people I mentioned previously. However while many Christians accept nothing but the Bible as how the universe came to be, there are many whose beliefs on the subject have evolved to include modern science, and accept theories such as evolution. You don't have to be a creationist to call yourself a Christian.

quote:
Or did my comprehension escape me and you meant to say that it can evolve, just not to any others ideas?


Ehh even the Church itself evolves to other ideas. They aren't pushing that the Sun revolves around the Earth anymore, are they?


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By Steve1981 on 6/2/2010 6:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm quite certain you've just answered your own question


Not exactly. It is men who choose to accept new ideas and incorporate that new knowledge into religion. Religion isn't some entity that chooses to resist change.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By The0ne on 6/3/2010 2:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying religion changes...with whomever chooses to accept what is and what is not? Man, that is just too much to handle. Give me quantum mechanics any day!

Now, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I have had many Christians friends. Not one of them will accept anyone else who is not a Christian. Not one of them will accept any other religion. And almost of all them, I'm Hmong, drink, gamble, curse, cheat, lie, etc (to the extreme that is). Oh and I love how they continue to preach on and on about them being good :)

In my opinion, I think Christians are that wackiest bunch out there. Come to San Diego or CA. There are tons of ONLY Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hispanics, etc churches that will give you the evil eye if you attend :)


By Steve1981 on 6/3/2010 3:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're saying religion changes...with whomever chooses to accept what is and what is not?


I'm saying that on an individual level, our personal beliefs and our interpretations of religious texts change as we ourselves change and learn more about the world around us. Over time this will contribute to an overall evolution of religion. As I said, the Church isn't promoting that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Beliefs can change and evolve when men open their minds. Unfortunately, as you have experienced, that can take some time and effort.

Personally, I find it foolish to view the Bible as some sort of historical text or book of science. In spite of that, I still identify myself as a Christian because that dusty old Bible still has words that are worth something to me. Be merciful; be just; be a peacemaker. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's proven to be a solid path to personal contentment for thousands of years.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By Connoisseur on 6/2/2010 9:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
Creationism is the literal belief of the Genesis story in the bible. It is NOT the belief that God created life perhaps billions of years ago and life "evolved". That's intelligent design... a theory, frankly, that tries to inject faith into an otherwise objective scientific theory. Now intelligent design at LEAST accepts observable facts and figures and just happens to inject a creator in there because the proponents have a difficult time believing that such evolution can occur randomly over many MANY eons.

I tend to dismiss creationism because it's based on a book which, in many instances, has been shown to be an amalgamation of stories from even older religions. Now some of those stories are based on historical fact (which is why they exist in the older religions), but absolutely NOTHING in the Genesis story is provable.

Here's the bottom line: Science at least tries it's hardest to say "hey look, don't take our word for it. You can see this yourself. This is how." I would LOVE to see someone come up to me and say "Hey look, this was made by God. Don't take my word for it. He'll show you how." Being able to replicate/observe a phenomenon and explain its inner working instantly gives science far more validity in my eyes than faith. Especially any faith with strings attached... the strings are the WORST part.


By wolrah on 6/2/2010 11:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is NOT the belief that God created life perhaps billions of years ago and life "evolved". That's intelligent design... a theory, frankly, that tries to inject faith into an otherwise objective scientific theory. Now intelligent design at LEAST accepts observable facts and figures and just happens to inject a creator in there because the proponents have a difficult time believing that such evolution can occur randomly over many MANY eons.


No, intelligent design is on the creation side which denies evolution. That's why it is always put up by those idiots as an "alternative" to evolution. Of course what they forget is the whole "supporting evidence" thing. Whenever pressed for evidence in favor of their claim, they either revert to attacks on evolution (as if proving evolution false would somehow make their idea true) or vague arguments from ignorance "I can't imagine how this could have evolved, therefore there must be a creator".

You're right about the rest though, the "don't take my word for it, here's how we came to this conclusion" nature of published science is its best feature.


RE: Creationists are such easy targets...
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 1:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The age of the Earth is based on a method that has been shown to be fallible.

Fallible in what way? Off by a few percent, or off by a few orders of magnitude?

quote:
But who's to say God didn't create the world as it is?

It's entirely possible he did, but that assumes a deceptive trait in our alleged deity, and once you introduce the possibility that we're being deceived, we have to then question everything... which just simply brings us back to the "brain in a jar" philosophical conundrum where we're painted into a corner.

No, if there is some omnipotent being that created everything and set it all in motion, he managed to create a fairly internally-consistent machine; at that point, given his omnipotence, why bother with a deception at all, if the deception is going to perfectly resemble a non-decptive, 12+ billion year old universe? And, if we're speculating about deception, why can't the universe really be 100 trillion years old, and God only made it look ~12b?


By The0ne on 6/2/2010 5:49:02 PM , Rating: 3
To be honest, his post here discredits him more than any other. As you asked, by what magnitude, it appears he means just a few more thousands years :) This, of which we do know now, is not the case.

Denialism, great word for people of this generation.


By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 2:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
"The age of the Earth is based on a method that has been shown to be fallible."

But at least the scientists can answer the question, "What newspapers do you read?"


PLease..before posting...
By yxalitis on 6/1/2010 11:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Creationism, Evolution, and religion
Thought I’d post this up as soon as I saw another DT flame-war inducing article on evolution/creationism, in a futile attempt to reduce the number of posts bouncing the same ideas around.
Creationism is defined as a belief that the universe and all in it was “created” by a divine being, a god, or the God. Thus belief in creationism is exactly the same as a belief in a God. Moreover, the debates we see and hear on media outlets, in forums such as this one, and debated even in regards to school curriculum, are more specific then that definition, in these cases Creationism is defined as a belief that Genesis is a literal representation of the creation of the universe, and all events in the bible are actual events, not mere parables. Let us call these people Biblical Creationists
First, please let me address those people thus defined.
You believe in God, and hold the Bible as his sacred word, and as such MUST hold onto the belief in a young Earth, the Ark, etc etc. That’s fine, whatever makes you feel right, content, and happy with yourself is of no concern to me, nor should it to anyone else.
However, when you encounter people who believe in evolution, who do NOT hold your point of view, please don’t try and use “science” to support a non-scientific belief. Simply state that your faith requires you to believe God created the world, and end it there, shake hands, and go grab a coffee together.
FURTHERMORE, you don’t NEED to use science to PROVE the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that animals and man were created as they exist today. The methods by which God created the Earth are unknown (indeed, unknowable!). So if it appears the Earth is in fact a few billion years old, well, that’s a consequence of the way God created the Earth, he may well have compressed all those Billions of years into a few seconds. Similarly with evolution, we don’t know HOW God created all the creatures of the Earth. Nowhere in the Bible does it state: On the 6th day, around noon, God created the Ring-Tailed Lemur. So again, the evidence for evolution is simply revealing HOW God created the natural wonders of the land. Can’t we agree that evolution, whether by Divine guidance, or some unknown mechanism, is a magnificent process, one that allows animals to adapt to their changing environments, and give rise to the diversity of life on the planet today? Why fight about the precise aspects, when, as stated above, biblical creationists already have a weighted bias towards one viewpoint. If an evolutionist offends you be suggesting that Man descended from monkeys, just say that it only appears that way, because God used a similar template, or whatever.
Second, Let me address those who believe in Evolution, the theory, regardless of how little we understand the process(es) involved.
I just don’t get this hostility against Creationists, realise that these people are talking from their faith, and won’t listen to reason, I mean, come on, some of these people are actually searching for Noah’s Ark!! You seriously think people who thing the Great Flood is an actual event in the recent history of this planet, are going to be swayed by your arguments on evolution?
Just give it up, save your breath, no amount of logic, evidence, or common sense is going to bring them over to your viewpoint.




RE: PLease..before posting...
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2010 6:48:16 AM , Rating: 1
Actually scientists have found areas near the Black Sea where they believe the "Great Flood" could have happened. It used to be livable land but was then flooded by the sea and recently dried up again allowing scientists to find the remains of human civilization.

Also if it was BS, why do references of such an event exist in so many ancient cultures?


RE: PLease..before posting...
By retrospooty on 6/2/2010 8:34:29 AM , Rating: 5
The black sea did flood, as did many places on earth when the ice melted after the last ice age... Of course, this is the root of flood myths all over the planet. Sea levels were an estimated 400+ feet lower than they are today and many places flooded...

Sea levels rising 400 feet as ice melts is real science. Raining for 40 days and 40 nights wiping all out people on the planet and all but 2 of each land animal is pure fantasy.


RE: PLease..before posting...
By Quadrillity on 6/2/2010 7:01:22 PM , Rating: 1
There is always going to be a scientific proof of no God in your mind huh?


RE: PLease..before posting...
By retrospooty on 6/3/2010 8:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
No, not true at all.

Proving that the Bible is full of lies and that it is NOT the true account of god and/or human origin does not mean there is no god. It just means that western religion is full of shiz. It was basically "made up" by primitive men that didnt know anything.

People that believe in god are fine. People that believe what is written in the bible/khoran/tora about the great flood and origin of man are freegin retrards.


RE: PLease..before posting...
By Quadrillity on 6/3/2010 3:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe that's just YOUR OPINION... Cast a lot of stones do you?


RE: PLease..before posting...
By retrospooty on 6/3/2010 10:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
Are you actually saying that you think there was a great flood that covered all land on the planet and dood built an ark to save 2 of each animal? LOL

Sorry, that isnt me casting stones, that is you being a complete sheep.


RE: PLease..before posting...
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 10:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you actually saying that you think there was a great flood that covered all land on the planet

Yep. There is a ton of evidence for this too. One for example: There are fossils of clams and other sea creatures at the top of mount everest.
quote:
and dood built an ark to save 2 of each animal? LOL

Two of each kind that could not survive in the sea, yes. I'm sure you imagine that full grown animals were taken abord. Ever heard of babies?
quote:
Sorry, that isnt me casting stones, that is you being a complete sheep.

Calling me a sheep because I see evidence in a different way does label you as a casting stones.


RE: PLease..before posting...
By retrospooty on 6/4/2010 8:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... just LOL.

Thanks. You made me laugh on that one. Its funny in a laughing at you sort of way. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Yes, most land was underwater at some point over the past several hundred millions of years. Its because of the ever evolving 4.5 billion year old planet, tectonic plates moving inches per year over hundreds of millions of years, not because of a great flood in the time of humans. We have only been around for 150,000 years or so. OF course, if you werent an uneducated ignorant christian doofus you might already know that.

Yes, at this point I am casting stones. Casting stones at your ignorance... However I am done with you, you beleive what you want, I believe in science.


RE: PLease..before posting...
By Quadrillity on 6/7/2010 10:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe in science.

Sure! Just so we are clear on the subject that you are indeed a believer in the religion of Evolution. Enjoy.


RE: PLease..before posting...
By YashBudini on 6/3/2010 12:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
"Sea levels rising 400 feet as ice melts is real science. "

Not according to MAsher, the corporate fanboy/tool.


RE: PLease..before posting...
By retrospooty on 6/3/2010 8:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
LOL...

Well, as far as what will happen, who knows, but what DID happen after the ice age, when ice caps that were a mile deep as far south as New York city melted, sea levels did rise over 400 feet. That is proven.

what will happen now due to crap we put in the air, is not proven science as it hasn't happened yet.


Skeleton vs. drawing
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2010 6:03:50 AM , Rating: 3
How exactly did they arrive at that drawing of what it looked like when it looks like the skull is completely crushed? Not to mention that there are no shoulder bones in that skeleton. At least I think those triangle bones in the middle are pelvis but I could be wrong.

Point being, that skeleton could be an ancestor to man. Or it could be that of some kind of monkey or gorilla that is now extinct.

One of my questions for evolution is, its supposed to take a long time right? Then how come we find maybe one or two skeletons of each of these supposed links and not hundreds or thousands? Each stage of evolution would need to last at least several thousand years in order to get the kind of change. So millions of these creatures would have to exist in that time frame. Why are there not more skeletons?

Again, I'm not trying to disprove evolution. Just saying there are valid arguments on both sides and no one should completely discount one or the other. Enough evidence doesn't exist to prove either one.




RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2010 6:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that but how do they know the thing was furry? These drawings seem to typically be what the scientists WANT it to be, not based on any actual evidence of what the thing might have looked like. For all we know this could be an even closer relative to mankind than thought and it didn't have fur, just skin.


RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By threepac3 on 6/2/2010 7:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
Kind of how we keep depicting god...


RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 1:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
I can't think of a single significant depiction of God that wasn't completely out of whack with other observations of the world; a burning bush? A pillar of fire?


RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 1:42:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
These drawings seem to typically be what the scientists WANT it to be, not based on any actual evidence of what the thing might have looked like.

Circumstantial evidence: They note some resemblances to other animals, and extrapolate. Is it entirely accurate? No. Does it help them accrue more funds to continue the research? Quit possibly. Is it possible that this thing was actually covered in scales and slime? Yes, but that would make it even more of a deviation from known traits and tendencies.

So it's not entirely baseless; it's just not conclusive.


RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By jahwarrior on 6/2/2010 1:56:41 PM , Rating: 1
These “missing link claims” are always inaccurate and dramatic, with the evidence taken from one small bone or piece of skull and letting scientists imaginations run wild, they are filled with so many assumptions it’s a joke. In the eleven papers in Science on Ardi, the word "probably" appeared about 78 times, and "suggest," "suggesting," "suggestive," or "suggests" were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description. Great “science” guys! This shouldn’t have even passed peer review. Hmmm its no wonder they are going back on their wild assumptions.

If the theory of evolution was proven and true by real science (which it’s not) like so many of you on this site claim, then why all the need for the missing link and all the infighting over it?? That’s right it can’t be replicated in a lab, or observed.

http://www.icr.org/article/scientists-back-off-ard...

http://www.icr.org/article/4982/


RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 2:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Great “science” guys! This shouldn’t have even passed peer review.

Why? Was something inaccurate expressed? Were the possibilities they expounded on actually impossibilities? What's your problem, other than the fact that scientists recognize the limits of their knowledge and the need for further research?

quote:
If the theory of evolution was proven and true by real science (which it’s not) like so many of you on this site claim, then why all the need for the missing link and all the infighting over it??

Because the specific history of evolution is unknown, due to the inherently large body of evidence that we've just begun to tap.

I know for a fact that if I drop something, it will fall. So why all the research done on gravity?


RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By jahwarrior on 6/2/2010 2:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
My problem is that it is pushed as the missing link when all the evidence says otherwise. If you set aside the evolution-inspired ideology, there is no scientific reason—or observed evidence—to believe that Ardi was an ancestor of mankind. In fact, there is every reason to believe it is solely an extinct primate, as uniquely created as any monkey still alive today.
The ardi articles are filled with Speculation and evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations. Making wild and inaccurate assumptions is not recognizing the limits of your knowledge, but taking your evolutionary ideology and trying to make the evidence fit, even if it doesn’t. It’s just bad and misleading science.
Why cant evolutionist admit that there theory is unproven, but cling to it like its all of science??? At least some can admit it:
Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith


RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 5:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My problem is that it is pushed as the missing link when all the evidence says otherwise

I thought you disliked the ambiguity of their research, not the definitive pronouncements they make.

Anyway, sure, they make big claims about what their research might mean. Because they want more funding to continue more research. But making big claims about possibilities is not dishonest.

quote:
Why cant evolutionist admit that there theory is unproven

Huh? I don't think you know what a "theory" is.


RE: Skeleton vs. drawing
By Rockinelle on 6/3/2010 12:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
I find it funny you mention gravity research. Did you know that it used to be the believed in the science community that big rocks fell faster than small ones.

They also believed that if you were sick, you had bad blood. Thus blood letters. Maybe the Earth just started going around the sun when previously, everything moving in orbit around the Earth.

So called common thought at a time in science, especially something like Evolution that isn't scientific in the sense that you cannot test when something died. You cannot test intermediateness of a bone dug up in the ground. All you can know is that it died. The rest is a guess and is unprovable.

Just because the majority of Scientists (capital S) believe something doesn't make it true! History has proved many things untrue.


Missing link???
By Reclaimer77 on 6/1/2010 5:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Calling Adri a missing link, as if it's a fargone conclusion, is pretty misleading. There is intense scientific debate about this that the general public isn't usually exposed to.

What we know of Ardi is that it is an extinct primate with all the features of an ape. But, it was a unique ape, not like any of the apes living today. Ardi had features found in various ape species. Ardi was a mosaic of various ape features, but it was still completely ape. No part of Ardi was in any transition to becoming human.

So is it really the missing link?




RE: Missing link???
By Grabo on 6/1/2010 6:31:03 PM , Rating: 5
All ape?

It's not the common ancestor of apes and mankind, but she's more like an ancestor of men then gorillas and chimps.

She walked upright, not on her knuckles, and her canines were small, amongst other things- traits only the human branch of the family tree have.


RE: Missing link???
By Jellodyne on 6/2/2010 10:59:09 AM , Rating: 2
Well no part except those parts. Which came first the human or the ova?


RE: Missing link???
By Stacey Melissa on 6/1/2010 7:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Missing link" is a misleading term anyway. If thousands of years from now, you and your paternal grandfather's fossilized skeletons were dug up, there would still be a "missing link" - your dad. The only way to not have "missing links" would be for every single organism that ever lived to have been fossilized and then discovered. Good luck with that.


RE: Missing link???
By SPOOFE on 6/2/2010 1:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
Context is your friend: When trying to link different species, it's a little silly to talk about linking individuals within the same species.


RE: Missing link???
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2010 3:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
I hope the people downrating me don't take my question as being anti-evolution. I most certainly believe in evolution. But the fact is I don't see any proof that Adri is a "missing link". It is simply a unique ape. Nothing more. Nothing about Adri resembles man or is in any stage of evolving into a man. Adri simply doesn't bridge the gap between man and ape the way the missing link should.


nice setup
By Quadrillity on 6/2/2010 3:31:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Scientists welcome healthy debate; creationists cheer opportunity to attack discovery


I love how the words "welcome healthy debate" are associated with scientists; and "attack" is associated with creationists.

Reminds me of the "PRO choice" and "ANTI abortion" method.




RE: nice setup
By morphologia on 6/2/2010 3:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
It is fitting though...creationists actively aren't pro-creation, all their efforts are devoted against evolution. This is because they can't prove their stance, so all they can do is attack the opposite. Scientists are willing to consider any hard facts creationists have to support their case, if there are any.

Likewise, most anti-abortionists aren't really pro-life, or else they'd be anti-war and anti-death penalty. Meanwhile pro-choicers are often anti-war and anti-death penalty, so they can't be called anti-life.


RE: nice setup
By jahwarrior on 6/2/2010 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Your logic is completely skewed;

Pro Choicers would rather wage war on innocent babies, because they can’t defend themselves, fighting against evil and/or greedy men in wars(not saying all wars are justified or necessary, but some are) and through enforcement of laws is hard work and takes sacrifice.

ProLifers are against the senseless and unjustified act of murdering babies, and also believe in protecting the innocent through war if absolutely necessary and serving justice upon the guilty. Nothing anti-life about protecting an individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


RE: nice setup
By morphologia on 6/2/2010 6:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
And you have the gall to say that my argument is skewed? You've just tapdanced backwards around the valid points I made as if they weren't even there. Killing is only OK if someone who claims to represent the will of an imaginary cosmic father figure says it's OK? You're more self-contradictory than the Bible itself.


RE: nice setup
By Quadrillity on 6/2/2010 6:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
You know where we would be in this world without a set of rules and a ruler to follow? We would have people with the same mentality of yourself which is: "me me me me me me me me and me."


RE: nice setup
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 11:00:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're more self-contradictory than the Bible itself.

There has not been one single bit of evidence that the Bible has ever been contradictory. Some people like to use their own strange or misguided interpretations for evidence, but there has never been a single concrete undisputable word that has been either:

A) factually disproven
B) shown to be contradictory.


Apples & Orangutans
By morphologia on 6/2/2010 3:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why creationists feel that it's even necessary to argue against evolution...how does a demographic whose very existence is firmly rooted in lack of proof can claim to prove or disprove anything. Granted, nothing any reasonable scientific mind can come up with can convince them to adopt a scientific mindset, but likewise it doesn't seem likely that they'll sway the devotees of hard-logic and scientific fact with flighty mythology that changes fundamentally (pun intended) every couple of years.

It seems to me that it's more likely for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for science to bow to religion's ethereal and chaotic mandate, or for religion to elevate hard, scientific fact above vague, opinionated faith. My advice is that creationists keep science out of religion, and scientists keep religion out of science.

Creationists of course have more to lose by arguing with science on its own terms...if they keep it up, eventually every false faith precept will be scientifically disproven and the only rebuttal they'll have is "I believe otherwise, despite the overwhelming proof."




RE: Apples & Orangutans
By jahwarrior on 6/2/2010 4:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
“nothing any reasonable scientific mind can come up with can convince them to adopt a scientific mindset”

So your definition of a reasonable scientific mind is one that accepts evolution without question. In your mind evolution encompasses the whole of science? So if we don’t accept your theory we have an unscientific mind? If we consider the mounds (genetic, fossil, mathematical, geological, etc. etc.) of evidence against evolution and say no I don’t think that particular theory is true we are unscientific?? and because I may believe in creationism, I can’t look at the evidence and make this determination.

“hard-logic and scientific fact with flighty mythology that changes fundamentally (pun intended) every couple of years”

Your logic is severely flawed in this and many of your posts. Nor is your evidence scientific fact., but fully of unproven assumptions, bias and your own evolutionary mythology. This article is a perfect example of that. These “missing link claims” are always inaccurate and dramatic, with the evidence taken from one small bone or piece of skull and letting scientists imaginations run wild, they are filled with so many assumptions it’s a joke. In the eleven papers in Science on Ardi, the word "probably" appeared about 78 times, and "suggest," "suggesting," "suggestive," or "suggests" were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description.. Is this the hard logic and scientific fact, that us creationist can’t accept. Maybe we don’t accept bad and misleading science. The theory of evolution can’t be replicated in a lab, or even observed.

The bible doesn’t change it has said the same thing from the beginning “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” From Abraham to Today…a lot longer than your 100 year old flighty theory that does in fact change fundamentally every couple of months, years, decades etc. hence this article.

“It seems to me that it's more likely for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for science to bow to religion's ethereal and chaotic mandate, or for religion to elevate hard, scientific fact above vague, opinionated faith. My advice is that creationists keep science out of religion, and scientists keep religion out of science.”

The Christian religion and creation is not based on chaos but on order, hence laws and morals to live by in an ordered society with ordered language etc. and again “In the beginning God Created the Heavens and the earth, with each species, system and process having its perfect place in the world. The fossil record backs this up. It is in fact evolution with its unordered chaotic mutations and supposed random evolutionary term that is full of disorder and chaos with no purpose.

Your acceptance of Ardi says this "I believe otherwise, despite the overwhelming proof."


RE: Apples & Orangutans
By morphologia on 6/2/2010 6:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
Your so-called disproof of evolution is a fantasy, which is hardly surprising. Saying that there's "mounds" of evidence against evolution, yet providing none of it for consideration...I could just as easily say that there's "mounds" of proof that the Bible was written by Roman pagans as a tremendous practical joke.

To say that the modern scientific method is in anyway inferior to the archaic superstition and fearmongering upon which modern monotheism is based is foolhardy. I'm sure that, from a perspective of tenure, evolution seems "flighty" and new-fangled, but so do particle accelerators and quantum computing...at least to someone hopelessly rooted in an ancient mindset.

The only thing about the Bible that hasn't changed about it in the past 1800 years (that's right, it wasn't even written down until 200 years after the alleged events of the New Testament) is the fact that its simpleminded brand of enforced ignorance has not changed much since humans ancestors first became capable of walking upright and fleeing their own shadows.


RE: Apples & Orangutans
By jahwarrior on 6/3/2010 1:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
1. There is plenty of evidence the theory of evolution is false some extensive evidence against evolution to consider:
www.icr.org
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

2. The bible has never been proven historically inaccurate in fact from an archeological standpoint it is flawless and was written down more like 50 AD on..

3. I wasn't attacking the scientific method, just the theory of evolution and how the method is used in a completely biased and ignorant manner, like in the case of Ardi.

4. I don’t know how old you are, but like every other human being your time will come maybe you have 1 min left or hopefully maybe 100 years, I hope you live a happy and fulfilled life, but when you die all bets are off, the truth will be revealed. The bible says each of us will stand before the Lord…and each of us will have to give an account for our lives.


RE: Apples & Orangutans
By nuarbnellaffej on 6/4/2010 4:04:29 AM , Rating: 2
4. I don’t know how old you are, but like every other human being your time will come maybe you have 1 min left or hopefully maybe 100 years, I hope you live a happy and fulfilled life, but when you die all bets are off, the truth will be revealed. The bible says each of us will stand before the Lord…and each of us will have to give an account for our lives.

Something like this...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68
Whats really funny is that is basically what the bible preaches.


RE: Apples & Orangutans
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 8:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
I love how atheists always proclaim that they are kind and caring individuals that think for themselves and try their best to do good things in life; then turn around and spread hateful messages. Not all people that claim to be Christian actually are, and furthermore, no one is perfect. You can keep slinging hate every moment of your life if you want to... but I'm going to keep reading my Bible, and living a good life, and also live a good life after this one. Try actually reading the Bible.


Uhm yeah..
By Shuxclams on 6/1/2010 6:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Huge debate about it.... between a couple dozen people and the rest of science.




RE: Uhm yeah..
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 11:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
No debate really. Texas is the home of many book publishers, and they are sending out their propaganda to all those ready and willing to accept it. And apparently that's an awful lot of simpletons.


RE: Uhm yeah..
By jahwarrior on 6/2/2010 2:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
UMM YEAH

Really you’re calling it unscientific to debate this “supposed missing link” that is based on bone fragments and filled with so many assumptions it s a joke. In the eleven papers in Science on Ardi, the word "probably" appeared about 78 times, and "suggest," "suggesting," "suggestive," or "suggests" were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description. This is your so called “science”?!?

UMM YEAH

So it’s unscientific to question this “discovery” and the “many assumptions” made? Wow! I guess your prophets have spoken and you are ready and willing to follow. Why don’t you use your own brain for a change! Is this the Brave New World of science; our experts have spoken and there is no room for debate….


Very ape
By Grabo on 6/1/2010 5:51:40 PM , Rating: 3
This isn't going to get me very uprated but if that CBS-story-critic had stated
quote:
, "[Well], just more evidence for the growing stack of evidence that the theory of AGW is bogus. But of course the knowledgeable knew that long ago."
it would have been met with an agreeing hum from the vast masses herearound.

As it is though, I'm glad most view prolly view it with ridicule.

On to find the common ancestor! Faster! Full power!




By Dictator93 on 6/1/2010 6:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
are strange beasts, considering bacteria evolves right before our eyes...




lame
By Chiisuchianu on 6/2/2010 12:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
Nice sensational subheading.




It was the aliens...
By DC20 on 6/4/2010 4:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
You guys forgot to mention the ancient alien theory. While far from a mature theory, it is interesting to add into the mix. Proponents of religion often cite the missing link as evidence of intelligent design. What if, intelligent design is true, but the designer was misinterpreted at the time?

While it seems a bit too heavy on the science fiction, a bit of genetic manipulation by aliens is more believable than angels and gods. So while Mary may have existed and given birth to a cherished child, she was really just knocked up by E.T.

There is a documentary on the history channel that explains the theory in depth. Just food for thought...




Here's why
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 2:29:08 PM , Rating: 1
The conservative's love affair with God stems from the fact that he owns more real estate than anybody and he pay no taxes to boot. It's utopia for them, well just slightly incomplete. They'll bring the guns and the wars to make it just perfect.




NOTW
By congokit on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: NOTW
By michael67 on 6/1/2010 9:40:29 PM , Rating: 3
Are you now trolling in the name of god ?


RE: NOTW
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 10:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ask the PTL Club members.


RE: NOTW
By YashBudini on 6/2/2010 2:37:00 PM , Rating: 1
"That's why I believe in the holy scriptures, there are no dissenting opinions, only the word of GOD! "

"If it's in a book it must be true."
Millhouse


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki