…meie igapäevast IT’d anna meile igapäev…

2012-04-16

I don’t believe in evolution

Filed under: Rant,Terve mõistus — Sander @ 16:11:02
Tags: , ,

EvolveFish I don’t believe in evolution.

I can hear what you are thinking: Is he an idiot or something? Even though he has an MSc in animal ecology and an unfinished PhD in evolutionary ecology, he still doesn’t believe in evolution?!

But here’s the thing: evolution is a scientific theory, same as the theory of gravity, germ theory, cell theory, quantum theory, theory of relativity and many others.

Unlike religion, science doesn’t work with beliefs – you take the facts supporting the theory and compare those with facts not supporting the theory. Then you decide if the theory is correct – or perhaps you should improve the theory, choose an alternate theory or scrap the whole thing altogether.

And the theory of evolution has literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) scientifically validated observations and experiments supporting it. You have scientific articles, monographs, experiments (yes, there are loads and loads of experiments on evolution), observations and so forth.

And now we take the facts not supporting or invalidating the theory of evolution… oh, wait. There aren’t any.

There is not a single observation or experiment that invalidates evolution. No fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata. No human footprints next to dinosaur footprints. No genetic data showing the synchronized bottleneck of Noah’s ark in all of the animal species. No radioactive dating results or anything else disproving the Cambrian explosion.

There simply is nothing. Or, like Richard Dawkins put it, “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun”.

So, I don’t believe in evolution. But I also don’t believe in the chair I’m sitting on right now. I can prove the latter exists by an empirical observations (looking and touching it) and testing (I sit down – if didn’t fall on the floor, the chair probably exists).

Evolution has been proven. And it does not require belief.

About these ads

206 kommentaari »

  1. Excellent article. I, too, do not ‘believe’ in evolution. I honestly cannot wrap my head around those that think evolution is just an unproven “theory”, (and therefore cite the bible as stating the true origins of life). I think, however, many people do not understand the difference between a “hypothesis” and “scientific theory”. This really highlights why we need better scientific education, and less theology.

    kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-16 @ 16:33:45 | Vasta

  2. It’s a semantic game, but I hold belief on the same level as acceptance. What matters is whether the belief is supported by evidence or faith. And that’s where I make the distinction.

    kommentaar kirjutas Ananta — 2012-04-16 @ 18:17:16 | Vasta

    • Thanks for putting it that way, I just had a long discussion that may have been much shorter had I been able to express these semantics this way.

      kommentaar kirjutas Collin Reisdorf (@NillocR) — 2012-04-16 @ 18:56:10 | Vasta

      • One other thing that I think I should mention is that evolution cannot be falsified anymore the same way gravity cannot be falsified anymore. They are accurate to the extent that nothing new like rabbits in the precambrian would falsify evolution, it would merely highlight some areas that we have yet to understand. This is because we’re at the point where any new theory would have to explain everything evolution explains and more. Evolution might be one method among many that occur and we might be wrong about how exactly natural selection occurs. But there’s no question that the process of evolution is occurring.

        kommentaar kirjutas Ananta — 2012-04-17 @ 02:58:42 | Vasta

  3. Brilliantly written.

    kommentaar kirjutas rdouma — 2012-04-16 @ 18:34:22 | Vasta

  4. Evolution is not science in the same way gravity is science. Gravity involves numbers. Numbers are falsifiable. Evolution doesn’t publish numbers for a reason. Evolution isn’t falsifiable or is falsified on a regular basis depending on how you think about it. Evolution therefore isn’t science.

    When you take an event like 2 monkeys having human twins boy and girl who then make up the human species thats a near magical event in terms of probability. Its like walking across the ocean in terms of unlikeliness. But evolution posits that there are stepping stones all throughout the ocean that monkey generations could have evolved to these stepping stones and each jump was smaller. But the very presence of these stepping stones is now the near magical event. Mutations like Hiv can weaken an entire species in the way they slowly make the breeding population unfit in a way that is not filtered out by competition. Evolution involves the unstated assumption that the frequency of these globally destructive mechanisms like waves that would kill a person walking across that stepping stone are infrequent enough for evolution to be truly less magical than 2 monkeys giving birth to 2 humans. Perhaps there are islands where different genetic combinations are viable such as we see in normal life. But the spacing of these islands and the spacing of these stepping stones needs to lead across the entire ocean for the theory to work. There are a tremendous number of claims that are made by evolution that are not spoken of largely because most evolution believers aren’t able to understand them and because evolution is constantly changing its story as the old story is proven false.

    Most evolutionists if they are honest have a pattern of belief that goes like this: Is there a God? No. Did the universe have a beginning? Yes Big Bang. Could life as we know it survive in the big bang? No too hot. Are we alive? Yes, therefore there must have been a first life from non life. Whats the easiest way to believe that occurred? Evolution from small changes. And what assumptions are hidden in that claim? Most evolutionists mental brain power drops off about here.

    kommentaar kirjutas thoughts — 2012-04-16 @ 18:41:51 | Vasta

    • Sorry, but you are completely off. Evolution science does publish numbers, more and more – see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28unit%29. By now, no evolutionary scientist can do without in-depth knowledge of math, especially statistics. If you look at scientific articles on evolution, they are full of math.

      And as for falsiable – the same mentioned fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata would completely falsify the theory of evolution. Please, do tell how you falsify the theory of gravity?

      Also, you are mixing up abiogenesis – life from non-life – and evolution. The latter is really not science about non-life from life, it is about changes that happened once life got started.

      I recommend some basic college textbook on evolution. At least then you’d know what it is about.

      kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-16 @ 18:55:08 | Vasta

    • “But the spacing of these islands and the spacing of these stepping stones needs to lead across the entire ocean for the theory to work.” No. You make it seem almost like evolution had an intended goal in the evolution from “monkey” to human. Try instead picturing the ocean as full of hundreds of thousands of stepping stones, with multiple creatures able to walk in multiple directions as they please. Some die. Some don’t. What you’re left with is the view of those that have not yet died out, a snapshot of different animals still walking around this ocean full of stepping stones. No one is trying to cross the ocean, we are just trying to live by hopping from stone to stone.

      kommentaar kirjutas Mike — 2012-04-17 @ 00:37:56 | Vasta

      • Reminds me of that Takeshi’s Castle/MXC event in which people are trying to get across a river by stepping on stones. Some are real and some fake. Some people make it, some don’t.

        kommentaar kirjutas Weston — 2012-04-17 @ 06:19:03 | Vasta

    • “2 monkeys having human twins boy and girl who then make up the human species” Not a valid description of Evolution. We own a dog, a Shetland Sheepdog and I have owned Collies. Our neighbors own Golden Labs, and some friends a Cocker Spaniel . All are descended from the Wolf. Over the last few thousand years or so, through isolation of the Wolf, and selective breeding by humans for the traits considered desirable, we now have hundreds of breeds of the dog. We tinker around with the genetics of flora and fauna now to get varieties of roses, wheat, horses and cattle and turkeys {examples not the entire list} to end up with the perfect flower, the most nutritious and disease resistant wheat, the fastest or strongest horses, the cattle with the best milk or beef, and turkeys with the most white meat for holiday meals. Man himself has taken part in evolution. We have also tinkered with the human race: the smaller size and weaker musculature of women is a direct result of selective breeding over thousands of generations. The ever increasing threat of diabetes is being bred into the human race, because we can keep diabetics alive and functioning into their reproductive years, thus passing along the genetic material that triggers this illness. There are many other diseases that can be fatal that are passed on to the next generation because most people decide to have children in spite of the risk. Doctors and other scientists study the numbers. Have you never had your medical history taken. Did they not ask about various diseases and conditions in yoour families history.
      If your understanding of evolution is “two monkeys having twins, boy and girl who then make up the human species” then someone told you a very big lie. The great apes are very close relatives, sharing close to 98% of our DNA. So close, yet so far. Evolution is a slow process. Read.. Read Darwin, Spencer, Desmond Morris.

      kommentaar kirjutas Patricia Clements — 2012-04-17 @ 16:57:04 | Vasta

      • ” The ever increasing threat of diabetes is being bred into the human race…” I think you don’t know that much about Diabetes. Perhaps you think Type 1 Diabetes is hereditary. None of my daughter’s Endocrinologists are willing to give Diabetes an absolute cause; I’m surprised you would. It almost sounds like you favor some form of Eugenics to eliminate disease.

        kommentaar kirjutas sixtycg — 2012-04-17 @ 22:36:43 | Vasta

  5. Believe means “accept as true”*.

    So instead of saying “I don’t believe in evolution” you can say “I don’t accept evolution is true”.
    “True” means “In accordance with fact or reality”

    So you are saying “I don’t find evolution in accordance with fact or reality”. And that is where we differ. I do.

    * https://www.google.com/search?q=define+believe&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    kommentaar kirjutas Magic — 2012-04-16 @ 18:49:21 | Vasta

    • He said he doesn’t “believe in”* evolution, which is not necessarily the same as saying that he doesn’t “believe” evolution. It’s subtle, I know, but there is a difference, nonetheless.

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Belief-in

      kommentaar kirjutas DrAwkward — 2012-04-16 @ 19:13:46 | Vasta

      • There is a difference between belief and faith. I believe that Earth revolves around the sun. But, my belief is not based on faith. I agree with the article, but it mistaken about belief in that it is lending the term qualities that are really part of “faith”.

        kommentaar kirjutas Cortez — 2012-04-16 @ 20:03:44 | Vasta

  6. LOVED it.

    kommentaar kirjutas Hector Lugo Adames — 2012-04-16 @ 19:06:13 | Vasta

  7. [...] I don’t believe in evolution [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas The Blog for WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com » The Truth about Evolution — 2012-04-16 @ 19:28:06 | Vasta

  8. “And the theory of evolution has literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) scientifically validated observations and experiments supporting it.”

    Do you have a source for this? I’ve been trying to find a reliable estimate of just how much information supports evolution.

    kommentaar kirjutas James — 2012-04-16 @ 19:32:29 | Vasta

    • I remember a source from a few years ago, which set the number scientific articles on evolution to about hundred thousand individual articles yearly (I think…). But reddit hivemind would probably give you a far better answer.

      kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-16 @ 19:35:46 | Vasta

  9. Reblogged this on Big Questions For Small Minds and commented:
    This was a pretty cool post. I liked the M. Night Shyamalan style ending.

    kommentaar kirjutas groggerybront — 2012-04-16 @ 20:47:10 | Vasta

  10. Just throwing this out there, but Gravity is a LAW of physics and is not classified as a theory after much scrutnity by the scientific community.

    kommentaar kirjutas Nick — 2012-04-16 @ 21:07:28 | Vasta

    • Laws are numerical equations describing the relationships between certain things, so there is a Law of Gravitational Attraction that is a part of Gravitational Theory. Which has nothing to do with the correctness of the Theory of Evolution.

      kommentaar kirjutas ubi dubium — 2012-04-16 @ 21:48:53 | Vasta

      • Actually, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a theory and was proven to be wrong. This was first accomplished by Einstein when he applied electrodynamics to Newton’s laws of motion and found that they’re incorrect when you get close to the speed of light. This was further shown to be short of truth by Einstein’s unfinished Law of General Relativity.

        Experimental proof of the inaccuracy of Newton’s Law of Gravity is to be found in the procession of Mercury’s orbit and in the amount of the bending of light as it passes an astronomical object.

        These are all theories, nothing more. Laws were made to be broken.

        kommentaar kirjutas Eli Cabelly — 2012-04-17 @ 07:59:49 | Vasta

        • It wasn’t proven to be wrong so much as not completely accurate. Newtonian gravity is still used where the preciseness of special relativity is not needed.

          kommentaar kirjutas mythmonk — 2012-04-17 @ 09:08:15 | Vasta

          • Thank you mythmonk. I was about to reply the same way. The additions that Einstein made to the Newtons Laws approach zero at low masses and velocities, so Newton is sufficiently correct for most of our everyday experiences Laws are subject to revision as we get more information, but are not “made to be broken”. The natural world behaves the way it does, and we do our best to figure out what it’s doing and why. Trying to muddle up the difference between a law and a theory does not change whether evolution is happening, or by what mechanism.

            kommentaar kirjutas ubi dubium — 2012-04-17 @ 18:09:47 | Vasta

    • It is incorrect to say that “gravity is a law.” You seem to think that a theory is a guess and once it’s proven, it becomes a law. That is COMPLETELY WRONG. An explanation of phenomena is not a theory unless it is supported by proof, is falsifiable, and can be used for making predictions.

      From http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html:

      A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

      A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: “What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?” The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

      kommentaar kirjutas Tanya — 2012-04-17 @ 08:21:16 | Vasta

  11. Reblogged this on rowanwphillips.

    kommentaar kirjutas rowanwphillips — 2012-04-16 @ 21:09:28 | Vasta

  12. It’s not proven, it’s not disproved.

    kommentaar kirjutas Robert Sinrud (@Tynen) — 2012-04-16 @ 21:27:39 | Vasta

  13. I think this article rather spuriously redefines the concept of belief. I understand the philosophical distinction you are trying to make, but I think you are falsely equating the word “belief” with the word “faith” or “dogma”, which to me mean “belief in the absence of supporting evidence or presence of contradictory evidence”. As Sam Harris has said, “beliefs” are the conscious representation of reality within our thoughts. Certainly all beliefs are provisional and have some possibility of being false should evidence arise to cast sufficient doubt upon those beliefs, however that should not stop us, as a matter of practicality, from treating “theories” which have been proven beyond reasonable doubt as applicable representations of some portion of reality to which we require some sort of mental map. A good example is that of gravity. Newton’s theory is known to be incomplete given the work of Einstein and much of modern cosmology which yet casts doubt on Einstein’s work, and yet if one were to attend a lecture on Aeronautics or orbital mechanics, you would invariably find that Newton’s laws are still fundamentally applicable over nearly a full range of practical applications. So, within the limiting case of relatively small masses and velocities, Newton’s understanding of the world still ultimately prevails as the most practical means of understanding the basic operation of nature on that scale. It’s quite similar to the concept of having multiple layers of an onion being peeled away by the progress of ever improving observations and experimental techniques, although we’re not sure when we’ll truly reach the central theory encompassing all of them if we are even capable of doing so. In the meantime, I would say that saying I “believe” in something, should be considered roughly equivalent to “I think that this explanation is the best representation of a specific set of events which have hitherto been observed to have taken place”. I could thusly say that I “believe” in evolution, unless of course the discovery institute happens to find that pre-cambrian rabbit in the near future. So it’s not a matter of faith or dogma, but the belief is yet provisional upon all future evidence. Just my thoughts, interesting post though!!

    kommentaar kirjutas JonnyG — 2012-04-16 @ 21:28:54 | Vasta

    • JonnyG: “I think this article rather spuriously redefines the concept of belief. I understand the philosophical distinction you are trying to make, but I think you are falsely equating the word “belief” with the word “faith” or “dogma”, which to me mean “belief in the absence of supporting evidence or presence of contradictory evidence”. As Sam Harris has said, “beliefs” are the conscious representation of reality within our thoughts.”

      At the same time, as an atheist I can understand the reason you would want to play semantics and try to remove the word “believe” and all related words from your vocabulary. Suddenly every time you’re having a discussion with someone and you accidentally let the word believe slip–in the context you are arguing is true–you have to explain yourself to people who would use that as proof of a Freudian slip and your ever-present religiosity. I don’t think the sentiment behind the post is to sit around and play semantics, arguing the perfect word to describe the way one feels about evolution. But in the discussion of matters that threaten the religious status quo, every word you use has meaning to your opponents.

      Removing the word believe from your vocabulary is difficult because it does not equate to faith or dogma and has many uses beyond those, so I agree with you JonnyG. But it presents difficulties in use that are, sometimes, far easier to just never deal with than to explain every time you use the word.

      kommentaar kirjutas scottjen — 2012-04-18 @ 22:49:02 | Vasta

  14. “There simply is nothing. Or, like Richard Dawkins put it, ‘Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun’.”
    Can’t tell if troll…

    kommentaar kirjutas Ben Ung — 2012-04-16 @ 21:31:45 | Vasta

  15. Did you personally verify the experiments that show that evolution is true? If not, then don’t you believe in the results — somewhat taking them on faith? On my own part, I certainly believe in evolution, but there’s still a chain of faith there. It’s faith placed in the institutions of science, the experiments of which I believe I could potentially verify (mostly), but take on faith that I do not need to.

    kommentaar kirjutas Mogden — 2012-04-16 @ 21:34:34 | Vasta

    • You’re confusing faith with trust. It’s reasonable to place quite a bit of trust in the scientific community based on the technological achievements that are a result of scientific discovery which you can very easily observe, as well as the experiments and data that can be easily verified. Although it’s not easy to verify all of the evidence in support of evolution, a quick trip to a museum can show you examples of fossils and maybe explain how they relate to the theory of evolution.

      kommentaar kirjutas vincent — 2012-04-17 @ 06:31:59 | Vasta

  16. Evolution is a fraud: http://goo.gl/mqObr

    kommentaar kirjutas bresner23 — 2012-04-16 @ 21:44:50 | Vasta

  17. Bresner23 – I really do hope you are joking, because otherwise you really need to get an education, and quickly

    kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-16 @ 21:55:34 | Vasta

  18. My brother keeps telling me things that supposedly contradict evolution. Most recently he’s focused on the amount of radioactive material on earth in relation to it’s halflife. He claims that for there to be as much remaining radioactive material on earth as there is today, it would require such a large quantity of radioactive material to exist millions of years ago that the earth wouldn’t have been able to support life.

    If you can explain how this works, please let me know.

    kommentaar kirjutas kaedicat — 2012-04-16 @ 21:58:25 | Vasta

    • It’s pretty simple, actually:

      - Not all radioactive material has always been radioactive – things can be put into radioactive decay via several different methods. Carbon-14 for instance, is a naturally existing isotope of carbon which is found in organic materials. Since there are still things alive today, and many things have died, there is a lot of carbon-14 out there.
      - Not all things that are in a state of radioactive decay are dangerous. All radioactive decay means is that the atoms of a given substance are unstable, and so they “decay” into a more stable form. The material does not disappear; it simply changes into a more stable isotope. (example: Barium-139 decays into Lanthanum-139)
      - It sounds like your brother doesn’t understand how half-life is computed. The half-life of a given quantity of a substance is exponential in nature. It takes that amount of time for 50% of a material to decay, meaning that the second half-life does not reduce the amount to 0, but to 1/4 of the original amount. The equation to compute the fraction remaining is 1/(2^n) where n is the number of half-lives elapsed. Even after 5 half-lives, there will still be 1/25 of the original amount.
      - Back to carbon-14 for a moment, Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years (+/- 40), which decays into nitrogen-14. Carbon-14 is accurate for radiometry in estimating the age of carbonaceous materials up to around 60,000 years, which is about 10.5 half-lives before the remaining carbon-14 becomes too small in quantity for us to accurately measure.
      - On that note (and tying back to the original point), and this is probably the most important in this: radioactive isotopes are not fixed. There was not a beginning amount of material under radioactive decay and it is all slowly decaying into stable isotopes. Radioactive isotopes are created, both by people, and in nature, so your brother’s assumptions about past radioactive inventory are flat out wrong.
      - And finally, back to the note of radiometric dating – Carbon-14 is not the only isotope used for dating. Uranium-lead dating, because of the excessively long half-lives of uranium-235 and uranium-238 (700 million and 4.5 billion years respectively) can at this point date materials back to the beginning of the universe (or more likely at this time, the beginning of Earth), with an error margin of around 2-5%. And those are not the only other materials which can be measured for radiometric dating. There are a whole host of radiometric materials which can be used in varying situations and time periods.

      Hope that helps!

      kommentaar kirjutas mythmonk — 2012-04-17 @ 10:01:37 | Vasta

  19. [...] "CRITEO-300×250", 300, 250); 1 meneos Yo no creo en la evolución [ENG] dukelupus.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/i-dont-believe-in-evol…  por cargolcoix hace [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas Yo no creo en la evolución [ENG] — 2012-04-16 @ 22:13:39 | Vasta

  20. Praise the Lord, THE Creator! Praise Jesus! Praise the Holy Spirit! Say what you like, but I’ll keep my belief in the Lord Almighty.

    kommentaar kirjutas Word Up — 2012-04-16 @ 22:22:38 | Vasta

  21. Word Up — But which lord almighty do you put your belief in? Would that be Zhongtan Yuanshuai, or Thor, or Pluto, or Vanir, or Epona, or just the one Jesus, as you say? There are so very many gods to choose from. I pick a new one each week, based on the sound of their name — this week it’s Dagon — because it almost sounds like Dragons. (I’ll bet you believe in dragons, too, since you like fantastical myths so much).

    kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-16 @ 22:33:12 | Vasta

  22. I liked everything you said up until the last line: “Evolution is a proven theory”
    There is no such thing as a proven scientific theory! The scientific method is only capable of *disproving* incorrect theories, not proving that theories are correct.

    The fact that evolution has not been disproven despite much investigation is testament to it, to be sure. But it is not proven, and never will be.

    kommentaar kirjutas JW — 2012-04-16 @ 22:40:04 | Vasta

  23. Great post!

    kommentaar kirjutas ajay17 — 2012-04-16 @ 22:58:51 | Vasta

  24. There are no “experiments” which confirm that evolution is “true” — there is simply no counter-example which proves that it is false. I do, however, find Evolutionary Biology disturbing in that there is frequently an idea of progressiing from “lower” to “higher” overlaid upon the process as if by Intelligent Design. This is an open invitation to Social Darwinism — the notion that some organisms are more “highly evolved” than other organisms. This is an evil, human invention, not an attribute of the evolutionary process. There is no over-arching “Design” behind Evolution — it is only a result of billions of random survive-or-perish events. Evolution is at best an observation of history. Nothing more.

    kommentaar kirjutas Stewart Dickson — 2012-04-16 @ 23:01:55 | Vasta

  25. People need to seperate three words in their heads.

    Evolution is not on the same level as gravity. Gravity is a scientific law. Now does a “theory” just mean a guess. That is a hypothesis. Some definitions to consider in my own words-

    Hypothesis- An educated guess based on observation.

    Theory- A hypothesis which has supporting evidence and no contradictory evidence, but which cannot or has not been empirically tested.

    Law- A theory which has been tested empirically and has held true through all testing.

    Evolution by its nature CANNOT be empirically tested, and therefor is a theory. It drives me bananas when you get one side claiming its just a hypothesis, and then the other side turning around and pretending it has the same weight as a scientific law.

    Its in the middle. There is evidence of it, there is no evidence against but there IS NOT empirical evidence, which is the standard we normally use in science before we call something knowledge.

    kommentaar kirjutas moderatebias — 2012-04-16 @ 23:15:26 | Vasta

    • Law does not mean a theory that has been tested, it means an observed and repeated phenomenon. Theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and not disproven. Evolution can be tested. It has been tested. It cannot be proven, but it makes testable predictions (many, many of them), and none of them have been disproven (although the theory has been modified as specific elements have proven to be incorrect).

      kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 03:28:48 | Vasta

    • One more thing: There is both a law and a thory of gravity, as is true of evolution. The law of gravity is essentially that small thing go towards bigger things. The theory is how we explain that. We actually undertand evolution considerably better than gravity in actual fact, as we know the mechanism quite well… whereas with gravity we kind of just say that gravity is a fundamental.

      kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 03:30:53 | Vasta

    • What evidence exists then, if not empirical? You do know that empirical just means observed, right? And of course, you realize that evolution has been observed by scientists many times?

      Also, you are a bit off beyond there. A scientific law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena; merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. A theory would explain the mechanism of why the results happen that way.

      kommentaar kirjutas mythmonk — 2012-04-17 @ 10:07:58 | Vasta

  26. Next time you post try thinking out every sentence.
    There are 99 problems in this article but at least God isn’t one.

    kommentaar kirjutas So many flaws — 2012-04-16 @ 23:47:15 | Vasta

  27. It always makes me laugh when I read statements that claim that evolution has been proven and is falsifiable. Evolutionary proof is akin to people who try to give credit to God regardless of the outcome of an event, i.e. “The truck hit that man and he died, it was God’s will”, “The truck hit that man, but he lived, God was watching over him.” “Mutation form new traits, this is what allow a species to survive. That’s evolution at work.”, “Mutation takes away genetic information, this is what allows a species to survive. That’s evolution at work”
    Yes, I know I’m simplifying it, but it’s the basic gist.

    kommentaar kirjutas Angelo Marte — 2012-04-16 @ 23:53:38 | Vasta

    • No, that’s proof that you really don’t understand evolution even a little bit. Evolution has no goal, no higher purpose. It simply is a process of matching your environment better than other creatures of your same gene line. Sometimes it means losing things, sometimes it means gaining things, but that really isn’t important… there are a million mutations (or a billion, or a trillion) that don’t persist for every one that does. Read some basic textbooks on evolution, read some Dawkins, or hell, go right to the source (Darwin). Educate yourself, that way you won’t sound ignorant when you rebut evolutionary theory.

      kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 03:17:25 | Vasta

  28. This is wonderful. I stopped asking people if they believed in evolution years ago. I ask if they “accept evolution” and I always make it clear that there is no “belief”.

    kommentaar kirjutas James Watt — 2012-04-17 @ 00:21:44 | Vasta

  29. What about the fact that there are no neanderthal fossils?

    kommentaar kirjutas Nicholas Howland Buttler — 2012-04-17 @ 01:28:38 | Vasta

  30. Man, and people say that Christians like to pat themselves on the back and tell each other how right they are. If you think about evolution and saying that it has nothing going against it, that’s totally false. We see that humans needed to develop a higher level of thinking, but based off of observations today, such as a bully who takes away an intellect’s lunch money, we see that in nature higher though could not have developed in the way we think it does. The survival of the fittest weeds out intellects because of the gap between let’s say, a gorilla’s ability to survive compared to a developing human’s, who has no hair, no comparable muscle (to a gorilla that is), and no natural abilities going for it.

    kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-17 @ 01:34:32 | Vasta

    • I think you may have just disproven your own point.

      kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 03:24:22 | Vasta

      • How did I disprove my own point? Human behavior doesn’t promote intelligence, only brute strength. We, like most primates, are a social animal, so how would intelligence being bred out of the gene pool lead to humans as they are today?

        kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-17 @ 03:43:27 | Vasta

        • Essentially your response demonstrated a very poor understanding of evolution, pack animal survival tactics, pretty much everything of consequence to this debate. It showed a fairly underdeveloped intellect. Not that I am accusing you of being unintelligent, many people have blind spots intellectually for specific subjects. I may find you brilliant in other areas, but when it comes to evolution you are obviously very, very far out of your depth.

          We are a pack animal, specializing in both endurance hunting and co-ordinated hunting. We are the most successful example of this archetype ever. It’s fairly impressive in fact, but it’s very easy to see the evolutionary path to here. We didn’t have to compete with Gorilla’s, although we do so on a regular basis with our intellect, and we win. We in fact are adapted to grassland, not jungle. Our intellect allowed us to create very complex hunting strategies, which would have developed over time, and fact we also developed ideas around harvesting other kinds of food over a great deal of time. This meant that our young were simply better able to survive, not because individually we were strong, but because as a group we were strong.

          You don’t think intellect rules our society? Both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are highly intelligent people, and they are at the top of the heap here. I myself am an intellectual and have a very decent life. I was bullied somewhat as a child, but at this time I control a disproportionate share of the resources. This tends to be a common element amongst the more intelligent. Remember, it’s not about how alpha you feel, it’s about what percentage of the available resources you are able to use to ensure the survival of your offspring.

          kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 08:39:17 | Vasta

          • You control a disproportionate share of the resources, because people can’t just come take them like they could before. Before Government wasn’t a system we used, we lived by the law of the jungle. If you had ten apples because you figured out how to use a stick to knock them down, and I was stronger and wanted it, I could and would just kill you to take them. If those bullies from back then (Let’s say they’ve become a drunken alcoholic and wanted to kill you and take your resources), other people are stopping them, in a natural environment they would be able to do that to you.

            So other people would be able to take your resources since you can’t protect them physically, meaning the characteristic that would actually propagate would be physical not intellectual. If intellectual genes aren’t being passed down, then intellects don’t rise.

            kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 05:59:23 | Vasta

            • Before government was*

              kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 06:01:05 | Vasta

          • Cause I won’t be able to reply for at least 14 hours, just wanted you to know just how incredibly hunting is, since the first human societies were hunter-gatherers. If you aren’t good at shooting and you don’t hit a Deer/Buck good enough, it won’t die. Are you saying that in the time monkeys started to use weapons and go after the same prey as big cats in Africa (assuming you accept the notion that modern day humans came from Africa), they would’ve been able to compete? With sticks and stones? I’ll believe that when I see it, especially when it’s pretty hard to kill them with one shot using 21st century weapons. Just can’t buy it.

            And Crowd behavior is something incredibly complicated. Also, we didn’t develop real farming techniques until later in the “evolutionary” cycle. And “Complex Hunting Strategies” don’t breed intelligence. Look at wolves for example, they have a pretty complex hunting strategy going on for them, yet I don’t think they are going to gain intelligence. intelligence is a gamble, something that’s bred out by those more physically adapted to their environment, and that’s how natural selection works.

            kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 06:47:33 | Vasta

    • http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity and probably some dunning-kruger effect as well ;P

      kommentaar kirjutas mythmonk — 2012-04-17 @ 10:09:35 | Vasta

  31. In much the same way that you don’t believe in evolution, I don’t believe you are correct.

    kommentaar kirjutas Ian — 2012-04-17 @ 02:31:36 | Vasta

  32. His article is very wrong.
    If you take the word “to prove” seriously, anyone has to admit, that nothing can be proved. As freedom can not exist practically, also “proving” can not exist really. A mistake in proving is, that a person has to think about how to prove something. And anyone self is not proved he/she exists and can think rationally about at least something.

    So evolution can not be proven (there many philosophical thoughts about at least life himself)? So no one can prove of himself or of others that someone lives. Evolution seems to be right, because -as you said already- no one has found anything showing that evolution can not be right. Another theory would be great BUT is there any alternative? Every alternative theories had an aspect showing the theory seems wrong. => So because we have not found a better theory, why should we not accept evolution?

    Another aspect: There were many strange cases so life (as we think to know) had been finally be able to develop. Right! but if on one Earth there was no life, then there could be millions of millions of millions etc. Of earths until life could develop until our human species.

    And all scientologists admit, the chance to this development, BUT no one can say, that the chance is impossible. And this is more than enough to know.

    kommentaar kirjutas Ulrich — 2012-04-17 @ 02:50:15 | Vasta

  33. Well, I can also take a 10,000 piece puzzle and upend the box and it does have a probable chance that it will land perfectly and will magically be put together. But if you see a puzzle like that put together your first thought isn’t “geez, somebody must have dumped a box and it fell perfectly.” No, your first thought is “Someone must have worked very hard to put this together.” Now, you all must believe in the scientific method, but how many of you have applied that to something as simple as reading the Bible? Or as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I also believe in the book of Mormon. And if you guys really want to try to say I’m wrong follow this experiment first.

    Observation: Many people on this planet believe in God.
    Hypothesis: There is a God.
    Experiment:
    1) Open mind to possibility that there may be a God.
    2) Study His works.
    2.1) Pray before and after it. (Think about it, if you were a father and your son/daughter had no intention of listening to you advice would you share?)
    2.2) Keep a journal and sum up what is said. (The Bible is written in Old English, at least the KJV I use, and no matter how smart you are, most of use can’t easily comprehend it.)
    3) On top of reading make sure to pray at least once a day.
    Results: Fill it in.
    Conclusion: Fill it in.

    And before you flame and say “He doesn’t exist, why would I waste my time?” just think by saying that you are just denying that scientific method, something that evolution is based upon, and if you are scientist enough to try this experiment then you really have no say at all in arguing the validity of the Bible.

    kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-17 @ 03:37:01 | Vasta

    • Once again, someone criticizing evolution in favour of a religious point of view has proven that he doesn’t have an even rudimentry grasp of the subject, or of science in general. There is not testable point in what you said for testing the bible. In fact you can come up with testable experiments for the bible (which can only falsify… that’s how science works). The first one is look at predictions made in the bible and see which ones should have come true by this point. Then check to see if they have. A second one is look at what the bible says happened in the past, see if it matches (even slightly) our observed reality. Then, look at the book itslef and check it for inconsistencies (things that outright contradict each other). In all of these cases, the bible fails massively. Revalations was supposed to occure before the last person living when Jesus was alive had died…

      What you described is not an experiment, it is simple indoctrination.

      As to the puzzle, it’s more like this: Take a deck of cards. Throw them up in the air, then collect them up and write down the order they come up in. If you didn’t predict it in advance there is simply nothing even slightly remarkable about it.

      kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 03:56:34 | Vasta

      • Okay, so let’s look at falsification of evolution. Where did first life begin? The ocean. (Also says so in the Bible) Now, where is the most suitable place for life to occur? Ocean geysers at the bottom of the ocean. By simple deduction of how life is today, every scrap of life either has to feed and live right next to the vents, or have “Snowfall” (Organic matter that falls from above) occur. Now if life came from the depths since most scientists agree that first lifeforms used chemosythesis, we can follow the logical flow of order that life would not have gone above the vents because there was no organic matter falling from the surface.

        Now let’s go to a thought experiment. By the same logic you use, electrons do not exist. We cannot see them, therefore cannot observe, and have to use lab results to see the effects of electrons. What I am proposing is that since you cannot see God, you have to do experiments that show how he effects our lives. Which is the experiment I proposed.
        And if you go to the Book of Mormon; Moroni Chapter 10 Versus 3-4: 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
        By the sentence structure “If these things are not true” testing to see if a hypothesis is wrong. (The Hypothesis being if ‘these things’ are true) Sounds a lot like a scientific experiment to me.

        As to the book of revelations, I don’t think you understand what the book is saying. It never says that it is supposed to come about before the last person living when Jesus was alive had died. It was to occur at the breaking of the seventh seal and after all the signs of the apocalypse had occurred. Which the signs had not happened so how is the Book of Revelations supposed to have occurred?

        kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-17 @ 05:20:32 | Vasta

        • First: your logic is so flawed it hurts my brain. Evolution actually does not refere to the origin of life in any way (have you even read the theory?). Did life begin in the ocean? Yes. Did it being next to volcanic vents? Maybe, but that’s hardly a proven point. Even if it did, it’s shape would be a great deal different from what we see now. Probably beginning with simple RNA chains in fact.

          So, I can build an AFM (atomic force microscope) or STM (scanning tunneling microscope) and observe atoms. I can then observe the properties of atoms (via a number of methods) and observe electrons. I don’t have to take that on faith, as I have access to all of the elements that go into it. I merely have to work to make that happen. You have confused the term thought experiment and the word experiment on the basis that both contain that word. However, there is no real connection between what you have proposed and an actual experiment where you have falsifiable, repeatable results (preferably with decent controls). In the end you are very, very ignorant of science and really should just stick to faith.

          You are right , the bible doesn’t set the date of the return of Jesus… the early Christians believed it would be within their lifetime, but it doesn’t explicitly state that. When I said Revelations was supposed to occur within peoples lives, I meaint according to the beliefs of everyone who was closest to the event.

          kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 08:49:59 | Vasta

          • In several places in the gospels, Jesus is quoted as saying that his return and the “end times” would occur within the lifetimes of those who were standing there listening to him. (Matt 16:28, Luke 9:27, Matt 23:36, Matthew 24:34, Matthew 26:64, Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, Mark 14:62, Luke 21:32, and more) So, you were right the first time, Traverse. And for those about to say, “out of context!”, read them in context. Read them all. It only gets worse in context. At least 3 or 4 of those verses are supposed to be recounting the same event. Apologists have come up with responses to all of them, of course, but those responses ignore the context, and stretch credibility to the breaking point, for me. Taken together as different accounts of the same event, and to me, in context, they clearly indicate that he was described as claiming that some of those living at the time would see his return and the end times.

            Oh yeah, and one more thing Buzzkill, where in the Bible did it say life originated in the ocean? It says no such thing, as far as I know.

            kommentaar kirjutas Carloid — 2012-04-17 @ 10:15:13 | Vasta

            • the bible is not a scientific or even factual document, nor should it be regarded as one. come back with real evidence if you want to debate people who believe in science, evidence, and reality rather than fairy tales.

              kommentaar kirjutas Mike — 2012-04-17 @ 14:55:30 | Vasta

            • Genesis 1: 20-21 KJV, says life began in the water then everything else was brought out through it.

              kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-17 @ 15:22:01 | Vasta

            • Pardon me, but Genesis 1:20-21

              20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
              21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Old Testament, Genesis, Chapter 1)

              kommentaar kirjutas Miriam — 2012-04-18 @ 01:02:02 | Vasta

          • Actually, those devices can only observe the larger subatomic particles such as protons and neutrons, not smaller ones like electrons. and your “falsifiable, repeatable results.” are is if “he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” Since you cannot observe God since he doesn’t behave in a continual lab experiment, the only way to see any proof of it is if you get promptings from him. And I know that sounds loony, but you should really try it. All your doing is trying to convince yourself that it’s not a real experiment since it has the word “God” in it.

            kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-17 @ 15:27:50 | Vasta

            • No, actually that’s not true. A real experiment has to be verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable. What you have stated doesn’t have those properties. You basically are saying “Try believeing in god and then you will see how easy it is to believe in god”. It only works if you start with belief. That makes it not an experiment. You are trying to make an experiment something it is not. This shows not only ignorance but also arrogance.

              I stated that you can see atoms with an STM or AFM, and that there are a number of other methods for observing sub-atomic particles. You have fallen prey to a relatively common mistake. You conflated the words “Observe” and “See”. I can’t directly see sub atomic particles, but with the right equipment I can observe them.

              In the end however, you are probably trying to do what you believe is a good thing (if I thought people were at risk of being tortured forever and I could do something to prevent it I probably would as well). You just don’t really know what you are talking about very well. There are Mormons who have studied these subjects and who have a fairly high degree of knowledge, even if they believe that it’s false knowledge. They don’t use the arguments you are using… since those arguments are very, very old and have been refuted thousands of times. They also don’t keep insisting on your thought experiment (a thought experiment is a phrase refering to a specific form of mental excercise and is not related to scientific experiments… please keep that in mind for future discussions) because it isn’t valid experimental protocols, not because of the word god, but because it isn’t falsifiable (I can’t refute a personal experience that you have) or verifiable (I can’t determine that what I experienced and what you experienced a the same) and because it isn’t verifiable it isn’t repeatable. It meets none of the criteria for an experiment.

              kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 16:36:45 | Vasta

              • And can you not observe God? You say that there is a certain and recordable order to this universe. If this universe was actually created by random chance, then why are the laws not random?
                So a “Swelling in your bosom.” As a sign that what you have prayed about is right isn’t verifiable? What’re you so scared of that I could possibly be right? Have you ever even opened the Book of Mormon, or the Bible except for trying to find passages for what you find? God won’t force you to believe in him, and I’m not saying “Try believing in God and then you will see how easy it is to believe in God.” I gave you an experiment to do (Ponder and pray about the Bible and/or Book of Mormon) and see if you get a result (A feeling or prompting, a swelling in your bosom.) (D&C 1:8). Again, just so you don’t sound arrogance or show ignorance, the experiment is to read and pray, the result is to see if you get that feeling.
                And just so you actually learn a nugget of wisdom, The members of the LDS Church don’t actually believe in a hell, the worst that will happen would be for you to never be able to live with God again.

                kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 00:59:00 | Vasta

                • Sorry D&C 9:8, not 1:8

                  kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 01:03:16 | Vasta

                • You say “If this universe was actually created by random chance, then why are the laws not random?”. Do you have any evidence that the laws are not random? I’d be very interested if you do because no-one else does.

                  I’ve tried reading the bible and I’ve pondered it. I got a feeling. My feeling was “these people are bugfuck crazy” along with a prickly fear that people who believe this stuff are walking around free instead of locked up in a padded cell and fed through a slot. Is that the same as the feeling you describe as a “swelling in your bosom”? Ritual cannibals who believe in killing people for cutting their hair, leaving their cult or doing overtime on Sunday? Who knows what they’re capable of… Oh wait, the “children’s crusade”…. That’s what.

                  kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-18 @ 06:31:38 | Vasta

                  • Okay, so you say that the only way to validate a prophet is to see if his prophesies come true right?

                    1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

                    2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

                    3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then awar shall be poured out upon all nations.

                    4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

                    1832 you “Bugfuck”

                    “I told Stephen Markham that if I and Hyrum were ever taken again we should be massacred, or I was not a prophet of God” (Smith 1902 6:546).

                    Guess what? They were captured again and killed.

                    “the time would come that the balls would fly around him [Doctor Richards] like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.” And guess what, literally happened. At the killing of Joseph Smith, Richards was in the same room as it was happening, got shot in the ear, but not a hole in his garment.

                    “I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains, many would apostatize, others would be put to death by our persecutors or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, and some of you will live to go and assist in making settlements and build cities and see the Saints become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains.”

                    Seems to me that happened.

                    So, My Prophets can know when a war is coming, know how they’re gonna die, and know where their church is going to end up being. Sorry bro.

                    kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-21 @ 11:32:53 | Vasta

              • Oh, and by the way, you’re observing the EFFECTS of the electron, not the electron itself. Like if someone keyed your car you’re observing what they did, not they themselves. You’ve fallen prey to that fallacy Mister.

                kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 04:54:04 | Vasta

                • Actually, you’re both slightly wrong on this one. It’s quite possible to observe electrons directly and unaided with just the human eye. You have to be above the atmosphere to do it because it blocks the high energy electrons from space, but they’re quite visible.

                  kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-18 @ 06:41:51 | Vasta

                  • If you think of an electrical circuit you have a power supply, resistors and sometimes switches. The resistor, let’s say a light, going off, is an effect of the power supply running through the circuit, not the resistor itself.

                    kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-21 @ 11:59:49 | Vasta

        • > “Now let’s go to a thought experiment. By the same logic you use, electrons do not exist. We cannot see them, therefore cannot observe, and have to use lab results to see the effects of electrons.”

          Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Just because you cannot see it with your eyes unassisted does not mean they cannot be observed. Electrons can be observed in laboratories using particle detectors. We’ve even been able to trap individual electrons for observation for long periods of time using paul traps and penning traps, since the late 1980s.

          kommentaar kirjutas mythmonk — 2012-04-17 @ 10:18:41 | Vasta

          • You’re “Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.” You can observe the effects of the electrons but not the electrons themselves. Fundamental difference.

            kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 01:00:54 | Vasta

            • Wrong^6 You used the idea of seeing someone scratch your car counts, seeing the effects of someone scratching your car afterwards isn’t the same…. Ok, so when you see someone scratching your car, photons (from the sun) strike the person, the person re-emits the photons in a different direction, some of those photons enter your eye and are percieved. To you that counts as “seeing them”. Ok, go to a rave party. UV light shines on the electrons in people’s clothing. The electron is excited and then emits a photon (just like your car vandal). That photon may enter your eye and be percieved. That’s you seeing an electron every bit as much as you seeing someone scratching your car. Just like the sight of the person lets you know what they’re doing, the sight of the electron lets you know what it was doing (jumping from one energy state to another actually).

              kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-18 @ 06:57:08 | Vasta

              • Actually, you are seeing light wavelengths, not the electrons themselves.What you said was right, when light hits an electron it excites it to another energy level then the energy dissipates and the electrons fall back to their proper energy level, releasing more light. So you’re seeing light, not the electrons.

                kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 23:59:45 | Vasta

                • If you feel you’re seeing someone scratch your car based on the pattern of photons that come from the car vandal hitting your retina, then you can say you’re seeing electrons based on the pattern of light from the electrons hitting your retina. That’s seeing the electrons. If you don’t like that, then go up above the atmosphere and when high energy electrons strike your retina you see them directly…. Either way, you’re seeing electrons with an un aided human eye.

                  kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-19 @ 08:36:56 | Vasta

                  • All electrons do is bounce light in different angles and change the frequency, in it’s most simplistic form acting like a mirror.

                    Eyes work by receiving wavelengths of light as anyone else here can attest, not by electrons hitting your eyes.

                    kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-21 @ 12:04:22 | Vasta

      • http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/electrons-vs-fairies.html
        Interesting link, read it, guy like you would probably enjoy it too.

        kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-17 @ 05:41:50 | Vasta

    • http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

      also, your experiment unfortunately does not qualify as a scientific experiment. There’s no scientific method applied, and no true observation to be had. Reading a book does no more prove that your god exists than does Frodo, no matter how much praying is involved.

      kommentaar kirjutas mythmonk — 2012-04-17 @ 10:13:01 | Vasta

      • D&C 9:8 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

        Experiment = Read and study and pray
        (By observation I hope you mean results) Results = “Your Bosom shall burn within you.”

        If you can’t see the scientific method there, then there’s no real hope for you as a scientists.

        kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 01:05:37 | Vasta

        • scientist*

          kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 01:06:02 | Vasta

    • Dear Buzzkill,

      I thoroughly enjoyed your comical post.

      1. You are a mormon. I am not going to use ‘ad hominem’ here but… You believe in things that even I (as an ex-Catholic) find difficult to believe.
      2. ‘Many people believe in a god’ – They do not seem to agree very much about the god’s nature though…
      3. “Think about it, if you were a father and your son/daughter had no intention of listening to you advice would you share?” – YES!
      4. “The Bible is written in Old English”. – NO. That particular book was written in a number of languages (most of them archaic) and English was not one of them.

      What you described is not a scientific method. What you suggest is: “Read a book written thousands of years ago, recapped around 1st century and then ‘enhanced’ by a loon in the 19th century. Believe every single word of it as it is true. Believe in a god.”

      I would appreciate if you could point me to your blog as I am big fan of Monthy Python and I feel I could enjoy very much all of Your other works.

      Best regards

      kommentaar kirjutas vladekm — 2012-04-17 @ 14:32:52 | Vasta

      • Yeah, I didn’t even touch the old english thing… it just seemed so far out that I ignored it. Thank you for getting to it.

        kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-17 @ 16:38:28 | Vasta

        • The point about the Old English is that our brains have been trained to recognize English patterns of today, and not those of the past, making reading the Bible more like reading Shakespeare in the regard that it requires more time and studying then a modern day book.

          kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 01:11:42 | Vasta

      • 1 What does my belief vs yours have anything to do about the existence of a God?
        2 The experiment is to prove if there is a God
        3 So if you have shared your opinions and statements (In this case the Bible and Prophets), the best thing to do is let your child figure out life by himself.
        4 Sorry for the confusion, the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, New and Old testaments respectively, and the KJV, which my church accepts as the most accurate English translation, is in Old English, sorry for the confusion.

        kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 00:15:33 | Vasta

      • Dear vladekm,

        1) There are many common beliefs among Christians. These include acknowledgment of Jesus as God’s Son, acceptance of the Old Testament (including Genesis), and general acceptance of the New Testament as well. Need I highlight how the King James Bible came to be? There is a lovely 8-part article here, that I’m sure you’ll find informative, at the very least for use in further debate: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/01/how-the-bible-came-to-be-part-1-a-testament-is-established?lang=eng&query=bible+came+%22how+the+bible+came+to+be%22

        The part I think you’ll find most interesting, explaining how the KJV of the Bible came to be:
        http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/08/how-the-bible-came-to-be-part-7-the-sweet-and-ripened-fruit?lang=eng&query=bible+came+%22how+the+bible+came+to+be%22

        Let’s all be adults here and not bash any one religion. I’ll let alone Catholics and Atheists, and you let alone Latter-day Saints (Mormons) shall we?

        2) Many people believe in a God, almost universally recognised as a supreme being who created the earth. Another typical trait attributed to God is the parent/child relationship described by buzzkill.

        3) Even the most dedicated and loving parent, after he/she is repeatedly spurned, will throw up their hands in frustration and neglect to offer advice until it is asked for. If you know your child is not listening, you will not “cast your pearls before swine;” you’ll wait for them to grow up a bit and realise you knw what you’re talking about.

        4) buzzkill is referring to the current KJV of the Bible, which is written in PROPER English, not necessarily Old English. Anyone in the upper half of two standard deviations away from the mean on the intelligence spectrum can easily comprehend the language. HOWEVER, the Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew, with along with some dead languages which had been translated into Hebrew before being lost. The New Testament was primarily written in Greek, meaning far fewer translation errors between the original documents and the current KJV. Unless that book on your bookshelf is written in Egyptian or Hebrew, I presume it is written in English, if not translated into your native tongue.

        There’s no reason to be sickly sweet, dear vladekm.

        Let us review the scientific method, shall we?

        1) Observe and Question-Many people express strong belief in God. Why?

        2) Form a hypothesis.-Many people believe in God because there is a God

        3) Test your hypothesis ATTEMPTING to prove it WRONG, not attempting to prove it true. We presume it’s true until proven false. -in the suggestion of buzzkill, study the supposed works of God, with an open mind, and do as they request, i.e., pray and ponder the words asking of their truth. For the purposes of this discussion we will accept as proof the promptings and feelings evoked following prayer and meditation. If God does exist, would He not testify of the truth of His existence as represented in His doctrine? If He does not, there is no question.

        4) Evaluate your results-Either knowing that God exists, or feeling nothing.

        5) Form a conclusion- God exists or God does not exist.

        Personally, I enjoy many of buzzkill’s other opinions and also express my wishes that he form a blog. ;)

        kommentaar kirjutas Miriam — 2012-04-18 @ 00:43:02 | Vasta

      • Dear vladekm,

        1) There are many common beliefs among Christians. These include acknowledgment of Jesus as God’s Son, acceptance of the Old Testament (including Genesis), and general acceptance of the New Testament as well. Need I highlight how the King James Bible came to be? There is a lovely 8-part article here, that I’m sure you’ll find informative, at the very least for use in further debate: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/01/how-the-bible-came-to-be-part-1-a-testament-is-established?lang=eng&query=bible+came+%22how+the+bible+came+to+be%22

        The part I think you’ll find most interesting, explaining how the KJV of the Bible came to be:
        http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/08/how-the-bible-came-to-be-part-7-the-sweet-and-ripened-fruit?lang=eng&query=bible+came+%22how+the+bible+came+to+be%22

        Let’s all be adults here and not bash any one religion. I’ll let alone Catholics and Atheists, and you let alone Latter-day Saints (Mormons) shall we?

        2) Many people believe in a God, almost universally recognised as a supreme being who created the earth. Another typical trait attributed to God is the parent/child relationship described by buzzkill.

        3) Even the most dedicated and loving parent, after he/she is repeatedly spurned, will throw up their hands in frustration and neglect to offer advice until it is asked for. If you know your child is not listening, you will not “cast your pearls before swine;” you’ll wait for them to grow up a bit and realise you knw what you’re talking about.

        4) buzzkill is referring to the current KJV of the Bible, which is written in PROPER English, not necessarily Old English. Anyone in the upper half of two standard deviations away from the mean on the intelligence spectrum can easily comprehend the language. HOWEVER, the Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew, with along with some dead languages which had been translated into Hebrew before being lost. The New Testament was primarily written in Greek, meaning far fewer translation errors between the original documents and the current KJV. Unless that book on your bookshelf is written in Egyptian or Hebrew, I presume it is written in English, if not translated into your native tongue.

        There’s no reason to be sickly sweet, dear vladekm.

        Let us review the scientific method, shall we?

        1) Observe and Question-Many people express strong belief in God. Why?

        2) Form a hypothesis.-Many people believe in God because there is a God

        3) Test your hypothesis ATTEMPTING to prove it WRONG, not attempting to prove it true. We presume it’s true until proven false. -in the suggestion of buzzkill, study the supposed works of God, with an open mind, and do as they request, i.e., pray and ponder the words asking of their truth. For the purposes of this discussion we will accept as proof the promptings and feelings evoked following prayer and meditation. If God does exist, would He not testify of the truth of His existence as represented in His doctrine? If He does not, there is no question.

        4) Evaluate your results-Either knowing that God exists, or feeling nothing.

        5) Form a conclusion- God exists or God does not exist.

        Personally, I enjoy many of buzzkill’s other opinions and also express my wishes that he form a blog. ;)

        kommentaar kirjutas Miriam — 2012-04-18 @ 03:04:51 | Vasta

  34. Reblogged this on Jacobs Take on Life and commented:
    like he said “evolution is has been proven” for the most part

    kommentaar kirjutas Jacob Perine — 2012-04-17 @ 07:51:42 | Vasta

  35. Just to toss a couple of spanners in the works . . .

    Evolution theory is much better understood than gravity theory. We know how evolution works, and we know how to manipulate it rather broadly. In contrast, though the hypothesis that gravity is carried on gravitons is pretty firm, no one has ever directly measured gravity, or directly observed it. No one has ever seen a graviton, nor been able to manipulate it.

    Every part of evolution theory has been observed, in the wild (and many parts observed in the lab), in real time, all the way through speciation. If proof comes through observation, then evolution has been “proven.”

    Best,

    Ed

    kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-17 @ 08:22:59 | Vasta

    • But if intelligent life was really the best that evolution could produce (I’m going out on a limb here saying on this planet we are most apt to survive), why hasn’t more intelligent life been had? And if we evolved from monkeys, why isn’t the evolutionary line so easily found? Just a giant gap where our heads grew so large? and to point out, why aren’t these species still alive, if intelligence is a better way, then most of them would still be alive today because they could outlive regular primates like we did.

      kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-17 @ 15:32:05 | Vasta

      • Who says the evolutionary line isn’t easy to find? There are more than 20 species between our last common ancestor with chimps and modern humans. Have you looked?

        Who says there weren’t more large-brained, intelligent hominids?

        Who says intelligence is a better survival tool than speed, fangs, teeth, bacteria to digest cellulose, or size (large or small)?

        Who says intelligence is the best evolution could produce? I’m partial to the long neck on that orchid with the moth pollinator that Darwin hypothesized, that was found a half-century later . . .

        kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-17 @ 15:41:51 | Vasta

        • Well, Intelligence is obviously the best survival tool, because I’d like to see all the wolves of the world fight us. Secondly I have looked at those, and I find it lacking, because if we have a higher survival rate than a chimpanzee, the stages between would have a higher rate too (And I know that we didn’t directly evolve from a chimpanzee, just the closest comparable relative is all). Plus, the stages don’t account for the massive brain explosion we had where it accounts for a huge amount of proportional mass.

          kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 00:10:30 | Vasta

          • If intelligence is the best survival tool, why are there more species of ants than intelligent hominids? Why does their biomass more than equal that of humans? Why are there so many different species of beetles? Who says humans have a higher survival rate than chimps, outside of a city? Darwin noted that people often arrogantly assume they are more fit than others — the issue of “social Darwinism,” which is really Spencerism — but that under most conditions, those fewer in number really are better “fit” to survive.

            kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-18 @ 07:56:39 | Vasta

            • Yes, and we have the power to eradicate whole populations of species at a whim. What would happen to ants if human aggressively used pesticides? Or wiped out their habitats since we don’t really need them (since over 75% of the worlds oxygen comes from the oceans)?

              kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-19 @ 00:32:16 | Vasta

              • My point, repeated for several of your questions, is that the questions don’t offer any significant illumination on evolution. It also appears to me that you’ve not done much research on your own to see whether these questions are answered already, nor even to see that the question is relevant. We now that some power to eradicate species (we’ve always had it, but were not conscious of it). But if you think we don’t need ants, then you don’t understand ecology. If you think the oceans could supply the oxygen we need to survive, and therefore there is no need for conservation on land, you just don’t understand biology at all.

                I’m not anxious to continue a conversation where you ask strange questions that have answers you could find or will not acknowledge, especially when you completely ignore my questions trying to get some light on just what you’re looking for. Were you genuinely looking for information, or is it just the time of the month for you to rant?

                kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-20 @ 19:27:01 | Vasta

                • Over 75% of the world oxygen is provided from the oceans. You don’t understand simple mathematics, Ed. Also, our species as a whole is not dependent on ants, if we have rich, fertile soil, a healthy ocean, cleaner energy sources, we could use the planet however we want. I’m sorry if you’re Eco-Friendly, and think that we need rain forests as much as the media portrays, but most of the lawns, crop fields needed to support our populations, and the ocean provide more oxygen than we need.

                  And I’m sorry that you have to resort to petty name calling in order to prove your point and that you’re so obviously anti-woman, but I’d like to think of where you would be without a woman? I’m sure you can answer that question.

                  Also, how does base human behavior encourage brain growth? It sounds good in theory, until you look at how weak we are at birth, how long it takes us to grow up, how weak we are in adult life, how almost every other animal in Africa (our supposed birthplace right?) is more adept at gaining food than us. Statistically speaking how would an animal as weak, and selfish animal as a human be able to make it in life? Just look at Modern-Africa today, poor economic standings, mass starvation, mass rape, massive crime rates, that’s how humans behave in a base form with little to no government, how exactly would something like a human come about?

                  kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-21 @ 12:18:28 | Vasta

                  • Over 75% of the world oxygen is provided from the oceans.

                    Who said oxygen is the sole requirement? Apple trees don’t provide as much oxygen as phytoplankton, total, but humans don’t have baleens. If you have a point in that claim, I still don’t know what it is and I’ll wager no one else does, either.

                    You don’t understand simple mathematics, Ed. Also, our species as a whole is not dependent on ants, if we have rich, fertile soil, a healthy ocean, cleaner energy sources, we could use the planet however we want. I’m sorry if you’re Eco-Friendly, and think that we need rain forests as much as the media portrays, but most of the lawns, crop fields needed to support our populations, and the ocean provide more oxygen than we need.

                    If we don’t have clean land, we don’t have healthy oceans. You think all we need from nature is oxygen? Where do you think clean water comes from? Tear out the forests of the Rockies, not only will the people of the west expire, the Pacific Ocean becomes unhealthy.

                    Again, I fail to see any point to your ramblings. Do you have a point, other than an “anti-green” rant? (And an ill-informed rant at that.)

                    And I’m sorry that you have to resort to petty name calling in order to prove your point and that you’re so obviously anti-woman, but I’d like to think of where you would be without a woman? I’m sure you can answer that question.

                    Where have I called anyone a name? Stick to facts, here, don’t let your imagination run wild.

                    Also, how does base human behavior encourage brain growth? It sounds good in theory, until you look at how weak we are at birth, how long it takes us to grow up, how weak we are in adult life, how almost every other animal in Africa (our supposed birthplace right?) is more adept at gaining food than us. Statistically speaking how would an animal as weak, and selfish animal as a human be able to make it in life? Just look at Modern-Africa today, poor economic standings, mass starvation, mass rape, massive crime rates, that’s how humans behave in a base form with little to no government, how exactly would something like a human come about?

                    What does that have to do with evolution? Do you have a point? I fail to see it.

                    By the way, the problems of Africa that you cite are the result of brains being applied, or perhaps misapplied. But you’ve shown the seeds of the problems of the argument I think you might be trying to make.

                    Do you know what you’re trying to say?

                    Could you say it simply?

                    kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-21 @ 16:21:53 | Vasta

                    • Hmm, I don’t think that trees make water. That’s kind of up to the sun heating up the ocean, water evaporating, water condensing, at which point it falls back to earth. I fail to see hwo people will die without the forests of the Rockies, care to explain?

                      “Were you genuinely looking for information, or is it just the time of the month for you to rant?” Totally sounds like a sexist comment to me, or should I go around saying “Are you black, or do you just like committing crimes?” (Look up how many blacks compose as a % of America, and how many compose as a % of prison).

                      You really don’t see the point to my statement you quoted last? Humans had relatively no chance in competing with animals in Africa, and I won’t buy that we evolved until you show me how we could have.

                      kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-21 @ 17:28:07

                    • No, trees clean the water, filter it, and hold it for later dispersion to use in the valley below.

                      As I said, you don’t know much about biology and life on Earth. Worse, what you do know is much garbage information.

                      The forests of the Rockies filter and clean the water that flows to the Pacific, not to mention providing the habitat in which much of the fish of the ocean breed in — the Rockies are a huge estuary that keeps the Pacific healthy.

                      Do you have a point? Can you state it?

                      Humans had relatively no chance in competing with animals in Africa, and I won’t buy that we evolved until you show me how we could have.

                      Why do you claim humans had no chance to compete with animals in Africa? Which animals, in specific? Your claim makes no sense with no context. Humans are not the top carnivores, nor the top herbivores. They are pretty good omnivores, and there are a lot niches for omnivores in most environments. What animals do you claim humans cannot compete against in the omnivore category? Honey badgers? Bonobos?

                      If you think my calling your bluff is sexist, make a point based on information, and not on your hubristic ignorance of evolution, zoology, botany and the rest of life on Earth, eh?

                      Which gender do you claim I’m being chauvinistic about? You’re unaware of circadian rhythms?

                      kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-21 @ 17:38:37

  36. You can have god and evolution. Just explain to yourself that god made natural law, including evolution, and VOILA, no problem.

    Evolution is fact; the means (natural selection) is the theoretical part. The fact of evolution is supported by several different bodies of evidence, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy and physiology (including homology and vestigial organs), observation of artificial selection, embryological development, observation of species formation going on in the present, and by comparing the components of DNA of various life forms. Identical twins have identical DNA; the more distant the relationship grows, the less similar the DNA. That humans and chimps are each other’s closest relatives is supported by all of the above types of evidence including the remarkable similarity of their DNA (over 95%).

    kommentaar kirjutas Marsha Berman — 2012-04-17 @ 08:24:19 | Vasta

  37. [...] via I don’t believe in evolution « …meie igapäevast IT’d anna meile igapäev…. [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas I don’t believe in evolution « …meie igapäevast IT’d anna meile igapäev… » » Sparks for InquirySparks for Inquiry — 2012-04-17 @ 08:24:32 | Vasta

  38. Traverse Davies and Mythmonk, thank you for holding the fort while I was asleep. Much appreciated!

    kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-17 @ 10:10:30 | Vasta

  39. i am a creationist. i do believe in some forms of evolution, such as the eroding of mountains, floods that overtime have made the paths of streams and rivers change. but i dont believe an animal was one way then over millions of years its now another way. i believe everything,especially man, was made with a blue-print. a salamander has,is and was always a salamander such as is a duck,a goose and elephant, cells, man and so on so on so on. now again i said im a creationist but i dont need to be wacky about it, preaching to everyone that its the right way. but if u look at the digestive system of things and the nervous systems, it shows a blue print, a design, not something that evolved over time. u dont walk through a forest and see a house. it took someone with a design to cut the trees down, cut them into 2×4′s(etc),put the front door in a certain location, the bedrooms and windows in a certain location, it was done with a design, a blue print.

    kommentaar kirjutas mts007 — 2012-04-17 @ 11:19:20 | Vasta

    • Uhh…. “eroding of mountains, floods that overtime have made the paths of streams and rivers change” is not evolution. How can you comment on evolution if you don’t even know what it is about.

      And you bring nervous and digestive system as examples of “design-with-blueprint”. In that case the designer is horrible! Both of those systems are riddled with flaws – from joining of breathing and digestive system in your throat, which makes it not only impossible to swallow and breathe at the same time, but also choke easily – to laryngeal nerve, which is three meters long on giraffes, going down to the chest and then back up to throat. I won’t even go to the meeting of germ cell layers at esophagus and stomach, which often has cancer, faulty closing mechanism in esophagus (thoracic diaphragm), appendix, spinal nerves and all the other multitudes of “design failures”

      If there is a creator, he needs to be fired for gross incompetence!

      kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-17 @ 11:33:00 | Vasta

  40. Excellent point!

    kommentaar kirjutas danielwalldammit — 2012-04-17 @ 12:37:36 | Vasta

  41. Most breakthroughs in science seem to come from observation first then scientific research second.

    In science, we use scientific tools to measure our observations. In religion, we use spiritual tools to measure our observations. Since we know so little about either, I don’t see much difference in the two. Science requires the same amount of faith as religion. You are actually using faith when you believe in facts.

    Just because we can’t measure something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. On the other hand, what we can measure is 80% of all people have some sort of faith in God and humans carry a moral law. Although these will never be proven by science within our lifetimes, we can still ponder them in our conscience, which is an unproven entity within ourselves.

    kommentaar kirjutas dugmaze — 2012-04-17 @ 13:36:56 | Vasta

  42. Reblogged this on Garrett Jeremy's Webcorner and commented:
    This post reflects my sentiments exactly.

    kommentaar kirjutas Garrett Jeremy — 2012-04-17 @ 13:53:31 | Vasta

  43. Dugmaze, You don’t use faith when you believe in facts. They’re “facts” because anyone can check them so faith is no more required or relevant than shoelaces. if you can’t check, it’s not a fact. I agree that just because you can’t measure doesn’t mean it’s true. It means you don’t know. Humans do carry a moral law. So do Dogs (a slightly different law), so do Chimps and Bonobos (different moral law again). They’re all pack species and they’ve all evolved a moral law that suits their needs. They’re all different. Did Dogs or Bonobos get their moral laws from the bible? No. Does the bible even match human moral law? No.

    kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-17 @ 14:37:16 | Vasta

  44. Three words: Antibiotic resistant bacteria.

    kommentaar kirjutas April — 2012-04-17 @ 16:57:37 | Vasta

  45. I think many of you are forgetting one very important thing. God is the source of ALL Knowledge. ALL KNOWLEDGE. That means Religious and Scientific knowledge: and if God gave us both, shouldn’t they go hand in hand? One cannot contradict the other or cancel the other out. The debate between Evolution and Creationism is moot. There can be no debate. God did not Give us all this knowledge so we can pick and choose what is right and throw out the rest.

    The Bible says the earth was created in 7 days. What does that really mean? How long is a “day” of God? Can we really think of it in our small, limited way and say, ” it’s 24 hours” ? what if it was actually 1000 years of our linear time or even 10 000 years? Wouldn’t that make The “theory” of Evolution plausible? Don’t you think God thought big when he created the Universes? Why can’t we think bigger than the literal meaning of a Bible story? The Bible is a deep ocean of mysteries. We can’t even pretend to know what it really means. Especially the book of Revelations.

    God created us in His image. What does that mean? Does that mean God has two arms and two legs and a face? wouldn’t that be creating God in our image? God is made of things like LOVE, COMPASSION, MERCY, KINDNESS, GENEROSITY, to name a few. to be created in His image is to possess His Virtues. We are spiritual beings as well as creatures of this Earth. In short, we are beings gifted with an intellect and an immortal soul. No other creature on Earth has these things, so let’s not waste them on two dimensional, narrow minded thinking.

    kommentaar kirjutas Laura — 2012-04-17 @ 17:39:51 | Vasta

    • I think you forgot one very important thing. God doesn’t exist.

      kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-17 @ 17:41:30 | Vasta

    • Laura – your lack of understanding of the natural world is narrow minded thinking at it’s very best. You highlight exactly why religion is so incredibly dangerous to us as a species. Of all the people who have commented here, you frighten me the most with your ideology and complete faith in a 2000 year old mythological text.

      Knowledge is gained by learning, testing, experimentation and understanding. Your entire statement precisely quantifies your lack of knowledge of the real world – one that has been taught to you by others, without questioning, without trying to understand, test, or experiment on your own.

      The bible is fictional — its a violent myth, with multiple atrocity’s filling it’s pages, and with a horrid ending. I ask you, why, with all “gods creations” on Earth, are humans so special? In all the universe, of all the galaxies, of all the stars, of all the planets, why are humans so special, according to you? There is no god can be the only answer. Once you understand that, you will understand where knowledge comes from. Take gods out if the equation and you’ll see:

      All knowledge we have is learned by observation and testing what we don’t understand, by experimenting with unknowns in order to gain more knowledge, and understanding of what we have learned. Wet. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

      Laura – I suggest you do some further reading on the creation of religion. Once begun, you will understand that gods (all of them) are, and have always been, created by man. Read: Richard Dawkins – “The God Delusion”, or if you cannot handle Dawkins, try Bill Lauritzen – “The Invention of God: The Natural Origins of Mythology and Religion”.

      Lastly, the waste of time and narrow minded thinking comes from you. Open your own mind to the incredible wonders this entire universe has to show you, without putting god into the mix. Set your faith in religion/god aside, and learn something new for yourself.

      kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-17 @ 18:14:04 | Vasta

      • Sadly, it is you who is lacking in knowledge, who is missing out of the incredible wonders of this universe. The reason that we are so special, and that an ant is not is because God has a purpose for us. Life didn’t begin for us on this planet, it existed beforehand and will exist afterwards.

        Let me share you a story that explains this better.

        A man had a beautiful pearl and he wanted to honor it. He built a magnificent box out of the most expensive wood he could find, crafting it with long hours of work. When he had finished he put the pearl in the box and put it on display. His friends come over and admire the box, saying how beautiful it is. Not even commenting on the beauty of the pearl.

        God created this universe, and yes it is wonderful and astounding, but we are what he made it for.

        kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 00:32:40 | Vasta

        • No, sorry. I’m not lacking in knowledge. I see the wonders of the universe quite well. However, I see it without the blinders of religion and theology. I feel sorry for you, really.

          kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-18 @ 02:49:00 | Vasta

          • Would you say you are honestly and truly happy? If I told you that you were going to die in a few hours, would you be at peace of how you viewed the world?
            I’m sorry for you, you don’t know what true peace feels like, but I hope you will. Religion doesn’t blind you, and God can’t be put on a lab table and examined. So I’m sorry that you don’t even want to try to have peace.

            kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 06:33:35 | Vasta

            • LOL — The religious always do exactly what you have done here — think that because we do not believe in a god or have religion, that we are not happy. That is such a ridiculous assumption to make.

              If I die in hours from now, I know that I will have lived my life to it’s fullest. And I would be at peace completely because I do not need to view death as something to overcome. I don’t fear being dead at all. I may fear the process of dying — I’m afraid of the pain. But I have no fear of being dead.

              Again, you are quite wrong when you say that I don’t know what peace is. I do know what peace feels like. I feel at peace every single day. It is a calm serenity that is inside each of us. Some, like yourself, must have a faith in a god to find peace. Some, like myself and other atheists I know, have peace because we know that this is the only life we have and make the best of every single day. We don’t have to have god to be at peace with ourselves, our world, our place in the universe.

              Religion binds everyone. It is the nature of itself. You are bound to your god, your faith and your limited view of others. I was raised in a religious home, and have no desire to inflict that on anyone. It limits how life is lived, and the constraints that are placed upon your very thoughts and ideas.

              My hope for everyone caught in the binds of religion is that they can cut them loose and remove the binders that blind them. I hope that for you. I hope you can find the incredible peace that comes once you let go of the religion you are in, and see the beauty of the world and universe without being blinded by your god.

              kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-18 @ 14:03:04 | Vasta

              • Why don’t you just kill yourself? If life doesn’t matter, if there is no higher purpose to it, rather than just existing for the moment, it doesn’t matter whether you die in 20 years, 50, or even 100. Just end it right? The reason I can see the true beauty of this world, the lasting beauty, is because I know that there is a higher purpose to living then just having a good time.

                And you say that living your life to the standard of having a good time. It feels good at first, just like drinking does. But what happens with drinking? Liver poisoning, untimely death, more likely to get in a car crash if you drive, but who cares, it’s all for the sake of a good time.

                What about Meth, why don’t you use it? the endorphin rush would be 14 times that of what your body naturally releases during sex. Since death doesn’t matter the early death would be inconsequential right? I mean, don’t even try to pretend like you have higher motives then living to be happy, because all you do doesn’t matter at all since there’s a finite end.

                But no Atheist does that right? And why not, and don’t try to hide in the guise of “it’s bad for you. life does mean something.” But let’s say singularity occurs (Transfer of mind to a robotic body) then you get to live for trillions and trillions of years but entropy always has to reach a maximum.

                So without God what is the true and everlasting reason to live for, Sir?

                kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-19 @ 03:05:31 | Vasta

                • Well, to answer your insane questions:

                  First of all, the purpose of life IS life itself. There is no higher purpose.

                  Second, why are you afraid of death? It is the natural end to life. ALL life, from bacteria to humans, dies. There is nothing unnatural or fearful about it.
                  Doesn’t your god say you get to go to heaven when you die? Or have you been such an asshole that you won’t be joining Joseph Smith, going to your “celestial kingdom” and becoming a god yourself (as the Mormon faith (of which, by reading all your posts you most certainly are) professes will happen).

                  1. I don’t kill myself because that is just stupid. I have people I love and people who love me, who would be heartbroken if I did such a thing. I have a wonderful life. Killing myself would only hurt everyone, and deprive me of the single life I have. the joy it gives me, and the happiness I have because by living life, I get to be PART of life.

                  2. Why would I not live a happy life? What reason should there be NOT to? Should I go around sad and angry? Should I go around spouting off lame ideology, such as you do in order to be happy? Your drinking analogy is pathetic, at best.

                  Joshua Steimle on January 11, 2009, on the website “Mormon DNA” stated that: “The primary motivating factor in the Mormon religion is to attain happiness.” You don’t appear very happy at all. I’m so sorry that you seem to not live a happy life, since you suggest that by being a happy person I should kill myself. There are help groups for that – check them out.

                  3. Meth — well, meth is something I would not do, as I would never want to harm my body. I only get one single life, and by using a drug such as meth, it would increase my chances of dying young. I’d love to see the grandchildren I will someday have — thanks — but maybe you should try it. A lot of it. Soon.

                  And you are right — most atheist do none of what you suggest — no meth, no killing themselves, no drinking and driving. They are not stupid. We live the life we were born into, and using the knowledge we have gained, we strive to make the world we live in a good and happy place.

                  Your last question — Has been answered by this entire reply, except I am not a ‘Sir’.

                  I’ll no longer be a source of entertainment for you after I post this — I have to live my life in all it’s awfully happy and atheistic ways. Thanks for the fun, though — it’s been…real.

                  kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-19 @ 05:03:23 | Vasta

                  • Oh really? What does your family matter in the grand scope of eternity if there is no God? What you say is that life itself has no meaning because what if everyone just died tomorrow, it would mean that existence itself did not matter. And you never did answer what the everlasting reason to live is. Because people are just fleeting things that wouldn’t matter if there was no higher being?

                    What purpose do you live for, does it really matter in the end if there wasn’t a divine creator?You say you don’t kill yourself because you love to live you life, but if you had eternity in this mortal shell and had to watch people die around you then I’m sure you would go around sad and angry because the things you hold on to are momentary things.

                    And actually all I have been doing is defending my faith. Saying why you can’t just say “There is no God, because I haven’t seen him.” And yeah, our primary factor in life is to obtain happiness, but not a shell but real happiness. What do you exist for?

                    kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-19 @ 05:53:57 | Vasta

                    • Defend your faith all you like — it’s useless. Faith is the denial of reality. There is no god. There is no god because MAN created GOD. There is NO divine creator. Never was. Read up. Get some schooling, boy.

                      I exist because I was born. I will die, because death comes to us all. Everything in-between birth and death is IS the purpose. Life is momentary — all life is. Have you never heard the phrase “Life is fleeting” — well, dear-heart, it surely is.

                      Now stop believing in a god, get off your ass, end your praying for things that only YOU can make happen, quit being a pathetic faithful sheep, and live a real life. You only have one, so make it worth every second.

                      kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-19 @ 06:15:17

                    • There doesn’t have to be an everlasting reason for living, not for me. I view that as shallow and stupid. My reason for living is that I enjoy life. Plain and simple, I love life. I know that doesn’t make sense to you… but I can’t come up with a better way of saying it. I love life, always have, always will. If you don’t share that, I feel quite sorry for you.

                      As to you defending your faith: no, you started attacking things you have at best a vague grasp of, insulting people, insisting that we all acknowledge the rightness of your half formed ideas and then got offended. You actually made your faith look bad in this thread, and made yourself look astonishingly ignorant.

                      kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-19 @ 15:01:10

                  • Hey, I’d just like to say I’m sorry Michelle. You were right. I have been kind of a douche. I shouldn’t be trying to shove my beliefs on you guys, and sorry for mistaking your name for Michael. But just like you get mad when someone says that evolution is totally false, I get mad when someone says religion is totally false. And I apologize for trying to attack your beliefs in such a way and hope that my actions don’t leave an incurable mark on how you view Christians. My behavior was deplorable and I’m sorry that I have acted as such. You believe what you want, and I’ll believe what I want, and no one should take that right from us. Sorry Ma’am.

                    kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-19 @ 06:17:49 | Vasta

                • Why don’t you just kill yourself? If life doesn’t matter, if there is no higher purpose to it, rather than just existing for the moment, it doesn’t matter whether you die in 20 years, 50, or even 100. Just end it right?

                  Evolution doesn’t argue taht there is no purpose to life. Among other higher purposes, living things exist to create the next generation.

                  The reason I can see the true beauty of this world, the lasting beauty, is because I know that there is a higher purpose to living then just having a good time.

                  And the reason you think your view, myopic as it is, is superior, is because you don’t have the big view. An artist complained that Richard Feynman couldn’t appreciate flowers the way the artist did — you might want to pay attention to part of Feynman’s response.

                  kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-21 @ 16:34:20 | Vasta

  46. All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin “I believe that ….” are simply shorthand for, “Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that….” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

    I really think this sums up “belief” in a scientific theory.

    kommentaar kirjutas Dan — 2012-04-17 @ 19:11:41 | Vasta

  47. The Bible says the earth was created in 7 days.

    I count six different creation stories in the Protestant Bible. One has a 7-day timeline, though it says nothing about literal days. The others don’t. Which part of the Bible does anyone claim is, consequently, falsified?

    kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-17 @ 19:16:15 | Vasta

  48. Reblogged this on Proud to be a Filthy Liberal Scum and commented:
    I don’t believe in evolution and you shouldn’t either!

    kommentaar kirjutas justinrosario — 2012-04-17 @ 19:56:35 | Vasta

  49. I believe in God. I also have no major scientific doubt about evolution. In the US there is an artificial choice between faith and science, and the debate is fed by people with ulterior motives to either promote or deny faith, which in reality has nothing to do with science, quot erat demonstrandum.
    Science is about the how of the universe and of life. It does not say anything, nor can it ever say anything about the why. Faith is about the why, and it need not be about the how. People who are comfortable with self contradiction may want to say that a document like the Bible which is about the why of things. To do that, the words in the Bible should be taken literally which is impossible due to the many conflicting literal meanings. Just one example – Genesis 1 has cattle/beasts first and then people, and then God rested. Genesis 2 has God resting, then creating man, then the beast. It cannot be the literal truth. IMPOSSIBLE.
    God created evolution. End of story for me.

    kommentaar kirjutas geli — 2012-04-17 @ 20:57:21 | Vasta

    • 1. I’m so confused. You say the bible cannot be the literal truth, yet you say your god created evolution and the document about the why of it is the bible? Huh?!

      2. There is so much wrong with your comment that science cannot say why. There is a huge amount of research that proves and shows why things have happened.

      3. In the US, there is not “artificial choice between faith and science”. That is a ridiculous sentence without any sense. Faith is superfluous, self serving and base upon absolutely no proof whatsoever. Having faith is the relinquishment of yourself, your questions, your own reason to make it easy to deny the very science that actually shows, explains the how and why of life.

      kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-17 @ 21:12:54 | Vasta

  50. It’s not about numbers?!?!? Evolution is ALL about numbers. Genetic variation couldn’t be a more falsifiable collection of data. Christian Scientist have now come forward and said that the genetic data now available is overwhelming – and that Adam & Eve would not have been possible based on the very real evidence of significant genetic variation. It’s simply too great to come from a two person origin. Understandably that’s not a popular thing to say – because it calls into question the Biblical account of Adam & Eve, which in turn effects Original Sin, which is ultimately why God took the form of Jesus and the resurrection occurred. By embracing evolution you have to be willing to make the above concession – and THAT is why this continues to remain unresolved. Those who want to believe, and those who know but must reconcile their faith.

    kommentaar kirjutas Eric — 2012-04-17 @ 21:05:25 | Vasta

    • For me, once I understood that religion was a man made “creation”, everything else fell into place, sans religion I was brought up with (and all other religions/gods). Easy. Simple. And admittedly hard to do when it comes to interpersonal relationships, but the only rational and logical conclusion. I don’t think that anyone can rationalize and reconcile “faith” with the overwhelming scientific data we have at our disposal.

      kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-17 @ 21:27:58 | Vasta

  51. I want to approach this from another angle: faith versus proof. The entire Christian Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is replete with stories of faith and proof not being compatible. Starting with Adam we have a person who has an intimate and personal relationship with his creator which would be the ultimate proof of the existence of God. But did that proof translate into faith? The answer was a definite “no.” Later in that same book we encounter Noah who is given a message from God that the world will be destroyed due to the wickedness of men. (Interestingly enough, God didn’t give the people in the Bible any actual laws to follow until Moses’ time; so what laws did they disobey?) Only a handful of people survive in the Ark, yet despite this the Babylonians still built a tower to insult the power of God only a few generations later. Proof aplenty, but again no faith. Did the visit by an angel of the Lord give Lot ’s wife faith enough to not look back? No. The only figure in Genesis that showed any real faith was Abraham, who acted to carry out God’s will in the face of no proof whatsoever. It was his role as the first of the faithful that made him the father of all men in the eyes of three separate world religions and not the faithless Adam.
    Jump ahead to Moses’ time and despite proof of the existence of God manifested in the ten plagues, pillars of fire and smoke, and the parting of the Red Sea the Israelites resort to idolatry when their leader goes missing. In fact, the Hebrews maintain polytheism (most notably Asherah) until the Babylonian Captivity. That event, in which the Hebrew people suffered with no proof whatsoever of the existence of God, was where the modern ideas of faith and monotheism were born. In the New Testament the miracles of Jesus did not stop the betrayal of Judas or the denials of Peter. Faith came to the flock after the time of proof ended.
    So here is my conclusion. Even if you could prove the existence of God, it would do you no good whatsoever. It would not usher in an era of newly restored faith; it would sow the seeds of doubt and discord into the religion you hold so dearly. Having faith and seeking proof are mutually exclusive. Don’t be angry at my proof and I won’t be angry with your faith. Both science and religion can at least agree on that being a waste of time for everyone.

    kommentaar kirjutas Outside_Portland — 2012-04-17 @ 22:30:08 | Vasta

  52. When I conjur up a scientific theory…I’m going to make sure it can’t be observed or re-created, so individuals like yourself can say “Well…you can’t DISprove it, therefore it’s been proven.”

    Darwin was a genius…at least on that level.

    kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-18 @ 00:31:24 | Vasta

    • A “scientific” theory is one that’s falsifiable. Hence your idea is absurd (using the word “absurd to mean it contains a logical contradition). If you make sure that your theory can’t be observed or re-created, then it is by definition, not a “scientific” theory. Evolution is however a scientific theory, it can be falsified as it makes testable predictions. Those predictions have been tested and so far it can’t be falsified. What you’ve suggested creating is what’s called in science a “Conjecture”. An interesting idea that may be true, that you have not yet worked out any possible tests that could falsify it. The existance of a non interfering god is an example of a conjecture. There is no possible prediction that can be made about a non interfering god that can disprove it’s existence. Science would say, ok it might exist, but as it can never have any observable effect, it’s pointless to even waste any time thinking about it. Betrand’s Teapot is another example.

      kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-18 @ 06:14:09 | Vasta

      • Sorry…but that’s no different than evolution. You’re looking at a series of resulting data and GUESSING how and why it got there. You cannot observe or re-create evolution TO ANY EXTENT.

        I use the word “conjur” purposely. For me to look at a pile of books and say “Those arrived here via the wings of eagles in the 1900′s after the great fires in the fields of Massachusetts” would require me to prove more than just the fact that books really are here in a pile. I’m sorry, but the Theory of Evolution has the burden of proof in this situation. It made it’s own claims based on no observable or re-creatable fact. I find it pointedly ironic that I have NEVER spoken to two people who actually had the same beliefs about evolution. Literally, the theory always takes off into it’s own direction, depending on who’s proposing it. The theory doesn’t have anything to stand on, except a few basic guidelines (so as to not waiver from the resulting data) and the imaginations of people everywhere.

        Like I said though, it’s pretty genius. To say: “I believe in a theory. It’s a theory that cannot be observed. It cannot be re-created. It’s an incredibly slow process that takes millions and millions of years. So not only can I not prove it historically…but you will be dead before you could ever dis-prove it. Therefore….It is fact.”

        kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 00:54:51 | Vasta

        • No, You’re completely wrong. It can be and has been observed thousands of times in labs under controlled conditions and observed many thousands more times outside the lab. A friend of mine created a vaccine for cattle against ticks. It caused cattle to produce antibodies against a protien in the tick’s gut so that when the ticks bit the cattle they died. It worked spectacularly well… the first season. By the second season a lot of ticks had a different protien in their gut and by the third season it didn’t work at all as almost all the ticks had a different protien. Evolution by natural selection demonstrated right there exactly as the theory predicts. They came up with a different vaccine that made antibodies for the new protien and recreated the same evolution a second time. Thats just one example I have personal experience with. There really are thousands more. The fact that you haven’t found two people who understand the theory to talk with isn’t a fault of the theory, it’s a problem with the people you’re hanging around with.

          kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-19 @ 07:40:13 | Vasta

          • 1st – you’re confusing adaptation with evolution. There’s a HUGE difference between the two.

            2nd – you’re referring to a synthetically introduced element which forces adaptation. Not a natural genetic evolution that literally morphs the being.

            kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 18:44:40 | Vasta

  53. The concept of evolution is a perfect reflection of the concept of God. Evolution is the infinite expression of change, a constant in physical reality. God is the infinite expression of consciousness, a constant in the nonphysical realms (like spirituality and mathematics).

    The unifying principle is infinity. The infinite oneness of the universe may be explored through many avenues, and each one adds a greater understanding of our own infinite nature.

    kommentaar kirjutas k'ai — 2012-04-18 @ 00:44:59 | Vasta

  54. [...] [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas Bible To Be Taught In Public Schools In Arizona. - Page 13 — 2012-04-18 @ 03:27:14 | Vasta

  55. I absolutely must take a moment here to express my thoughts about the analogy that everyone uses comparing Evolution and Gravity.

    Gravity is truly just a theory! Gravity is the attraction between two physical bodies, as calculated by their mass and distance from each other. We have an excellent mathematical formulation that allows us to calculate this quite accurately for many objects. HOWEVER, the gravitational relationship does not hold for objects too small for us to measure their mass. Thus Quantum mechanics, which is the study of how things interact on an extremely tiny scale. Currently, the theory of Gravity does not mesh with Quantum mechanics. If anyone can prove how both models interact in perfect harmony, please step up to claim your Nobel for identifying the Grand Unified theory.

    Please, stop crying that both Gravity and Evolution are Fact. They are both supported by an astounding amount of scientific research, but both still have gaps to fill. For Gravity, its the Unifying theory. For Evolution, there is still a lack of fossill and genetic evidence for many crucial steps. For example, while evolutionary theory universally aknowledges that humans evolved from a primate, the so-called “missing link” has yet to be discovered. What happend to the extra chromosome? Genetically and epigenetically, what caused divergence from chimps?

    Until these quetions are answered, these are both just very strong theories. Anyone who beleives that, for a fact, the missing link exists, does exact that: beleives. They have Faith, supported by their observations, that such a missing link exists, and they claim that they will be proven right eventually. This sounds awfully familiar to claims made by AI folks.

    As good scientists, we must question everything. There is a good reason why physics only has a handful of Laws, but many, many theories: it is because more evidence is needed. Those who claim Evolution as a whole and complete fact truly do not understand the scientific process.

    kommentaar kirjutas Steve — 2012-04-18 @ 05:24:24 | Vasta

    • Steve, you don’t understand gravity, QM nor what a “fact” and a “theory” actually are. There are plenty of records of so called “missing links”. They’re not missing at all. I don’t need belief in them, they’re in museums. I can just get a bus ticket and go look at them, no need to wait for “eventually”. Divergence from Chimps (and Bonobos) happened in the same way that speciation always happens. Two groups became genetically isolated and evolved away from each other. There may be some gaps in science (that’s why scientists still have jobs…) with some ideas that still need to be tested, but religion is *all* gap. All the way through. Unlike the ideas in science where they throw out the ones that don’t match reality, religion keeps the garbage and it simply accumulates. The only thing you’ve said that I agree with is “Those who claim Evolution as a whole and complete fact truly do not understand the scientific process”. Which is not because of a lack in Evolution, it’s because the elevation of a Theory to a Fact just isn’t a goal in science. Everything is always up for grabs. We don’t cling with irrational fervour to something we know is false (ie, faith).

      kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-18 @ 05:54:55 | Vasta

      • “The primary problem in producing a TOE is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are hard to unify. This is one of the unsolved problems in physics.” “Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions and of all particles of nature: general relativity for gravitation, and the standard model of elementary particle physics — which includes quantum mechanics — for electromagnetism, the two nuclear interactions, and the known elementary particles.”
        Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

        I use Wiki as a source in this instance as it provides a summary any layperson can understand. Please explain again to me why I don’t understand Gravity for QM? Do you disagree with these statements and contend that Gravity really is a law and applies to all known particles?

        Next, I don’t beleive i ever misused the term “theory”, either. In fact, I stated that Evolutionary theory was supported by an astounding amount of evidence, but still had remaining gaps to be solved. These are both statements that you make yourself in your reply.

        As for my statement of the “missing link”, it was a somewhat gerenalized statement. However, a direct and concrete map of human evolution is still being developed. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#Homo. Again, I merely sought to highlight the small gaps that we both agree are present. I am in no way attempting to discredit this theory because it has gaps, I am just clarifying the difference between fact and theory.

        I did not make any claims offering support to creationism, religion, or any similar theory. And I never accused anyone of clinging to “irrational fervor”. I am not personally stumping for any of these religious ideals. I simply stated that many, many people are ignorant of the gaps (that you recognized) that remain in our knowledge base. You then, in fact, proceeded to agree with my concluding statement.

        The argumental and personal tone of many responses on this blog are appaling- you would think that as a species we might have evolved forms of more polite exchange (joke intended). It may seem to many like my points about gravity and evolution are splitting hairs, but we as a society must be very careful about what we present to students as facts. As a University educator, I was appalled at the number of high school graduates I was teaching in general chemistry who had learned outdated and disproved theories in high school.

        kommentaar kirjutas Steve — 2012-04-18 @ 06:31:10 | Vasta

        • It was when you said that gravititation doesn’t hold for objects too small for us to measure their mass, thus QM. There isn’t really anything that’s too small for us to measure it’s mass. The unit used for very light objects is generally the electron-volt. That’s 1.7×10^-36 kg. So we can see the gravitional effects on light objects. The root of QM is not the failure of General Relativity (modern gravitational theory) to explain the behaviour of small or light objects. Indeed one of the first demonstrations of GR was with photons which have no rest mass at all and a mass as low as 1.5 ev. QM has at it’s root explaining the radiation of black bodies. I

          The reason I said you didn’t understand what a “fact” and a “theory” are was because you said “Please, stop crying that both Gravity and Evolution are Fact” and “Gravity is truly just a theory!”

          Gravitiy is a fact. There’s something holding my laptop on my lap as I type this. It’s gravity. That’s a fact. *Why* my laptop is attracted to the earth is the theory of gravity known as GR. Evolution is a fact. There’s something that’s made the golden retriever that’s vying for my attention as I type this. It’s evolution. That’s a fact. Why that golden retriever has the form it does is explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection.

          No level of filling in either theory will change either into a fact. Facts are what we observe, theories are how we explain those observations.

          “Laws” of nature are an out moded and basically abandoned way of thinking about nature. I don’t contend that gravity is a law. Rather I contend that gravity is a fact that is currently best explained by GR and that GR applies to all known particles. Equally I contend that evolution is a fact that is currently best explained by Natural Selection and that NS applies to all known living things.

          I couldn’t agree more with you about the dismal teaching of science in schools. I was forced to endure Bohr’s atom in high school science classes.

          You’re right about the generally poor tone of discourse on this blog and the internet in general. It’s almost like we haven’t evolved built in ways of interacting well on-line.

          kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-18 @ 10:41:35 | Vasta

    • What happend to the extra chromosome?

      Others have answered other of your points. The answer to this one is that the great apes’ chromosomes 2A and 2B fused at some point post the divergence between the two lineages into human chromosome number 2. This is demonstrated quite easily by comparing the genes on each. See, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome

      kommentaar kirjutas Michael McNeil — 2012-04-18 @ 15:12:52 | Vasta

  56. There’s a lot of christian religious people commenting… Just wondering a few things while I’ve got your attention. Why do you worry particularly and apparently solely about evolution vs creation and you don’t seem to be worried about all the other ways that the bible has been proven wrong: Morals come from God vs Morals are inherited, The ratio of the circumference of a Circle to the Diameter is 3.0 vs The ratio of the Circumference of a Circle to the Diameter is pi (3.141…), There is a heaven above us filled with angels and gods vs there is an anisotropic universe filled with various particles. There is a Hell below us filled with demons and tortured souls vs there is a layer of rock, then hot liquid rock then a metallic core. The earth is flat vs the earth is an oblate spheroid. The whole earth was covered with water vs the whole earth has never been covered with water. I could go on, there are hundreds more, but really, why just this one thing when it’s clear that the entire book is total twaddle from begining to end?

    kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-18 @ 05:37:07 | Vasta

    • Ohhhhh Really? It seems to me you are focusing on one branch of what religion has to say. God never said the Earth was flat in the Bible, sorry bro. It never says Hell is a physical place you can travel to, same with heaven. I don’t know where you’re getting that they used to say pi equaled 3.0? never read about that.

      kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-18 @ 06:38:21 | Vasta

      • I was only “focusing” as you call it as there are *hundreds* of examples. I only gave a few. For the value of the ratio of C/D Kings 7:23-26 “circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim … It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.” and 2 Chronicles 4:2. Completely clear, C/D = 3.0

        Flat earth resting immobile on it’s foundations: Psalm 104:5 “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” there are plenty more, I’ll leave exhaustive research to “bible scholars” and just give one each

        Heaven is a place above us: Deuteronomy 26:15 “Look down from heaven, your holy dwelling place” sounds like a physical place that’s above us to me… Even uses the same word as you do “place”. You said: “[the bible] never says [heaven] is a physical place you can travel to” yet Jesus says in John 14:2: “I am going there to prepare a place for you.” Are you saying Jesus is lying to us?

        Hell is below us:Romans 10:6-7 or even better the Apostle’s Creed (which you have to chant out in some services) “Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten son, who was born of a virgin, executed, descended into Hell. He rose again and ascended into heaven.” That actually covers both those points.

        Now, having dispensed with your ignorance on the book upon which you base your life, my actual question remains unanswered. How come *evolution* among all the hundreds of points which disprove the bible’s word? Why do you lot focus on that one thing and ignore all the rest? Why aren’t school boards picketed by people trying to get them to teach that pi remains a theory that hasn’t been defined exactly so it’s still in dispute while god tells us that C/D is exactly equal to 3.0?

        kommentaar kirjutas Jason — 2012-04-18 @ 07:36:52 | Vasta

        • Dude, you really need to learn what a metaphor is. English may not be your expertise if you think that everything you say is to be taken literal. Do you really think that people of Jerusalem would be able to understand the concept of an irrational number? So he gave them the closest approximation. And which kings bro? More than one.
          The Psalm one is talking, again, about a metaphor, saying that the Earth is set on its spiritual foundations.
          Again Romans and Deuteronomy is a metaphor, saying that heaven is above our current state of being.

          Oh and read this little snippet from D&C 87 Written in 25 December 1832

          1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

          2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

          3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then awar shall be poured out upon all nations.

          4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, aslaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

          Loooooooks like my prophets can totally call what is gonna happen in the future. Sorry bro. My faith is not so easily shaken.

          kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-21 @ 10:48:21 | Vasta

  57. I feel that there is a false dichotomy offered by the either or of God vs science. It is evidenced in these responses. Both sides work to create the dichotomy. I have experienced God – that is the only way I know God exists. God is the energy I feel flowing through all things. God is the universe to me, as well as everything in it. Before having a mystical experience I was an atheist. I do not have faith. I do not believe. I know God exists because I feel God on a daily basis. I would not call myself religious however because I subscribe to nothing formal.

    The dichotomy really comes into play when I say God because people then think of a bearded man like person sitting in heaven -the bible – etc.. That is not what I experienced. Although I wonder if perhaps it is just different cultures perspective of that energy.

    I also think the theory of evolution is perfectly logical.

    I am just posting this to say, it doesn’t have to be such a dualistic argument.

    kommentaar kirjutas nondualanonymous — 2012-04-18 @ 10:23:14 | Vasta

  58. [...] decided to write a small blog post about one of my pet peeves – that people say they “believe in evolution” (and nitpickers on [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas Holy fuq! 146 801 daily views « …meie igapäevast IT’d anna meile igapäev… — 2012-04-18 @ 16:12:47 | Vasta

  59. The idea of evolution is not lost on me. I see the changes between dogs, cats…ect , even people.
    So the idea that a wolf has turned into my pet Pyrenees or a Lion into my house cat is not a stretch for me.

    What must one believe to believe in Evolution though is this:

    At some point in time an infinitesimally small “thing” (particle) with immeasurable density exploded; “The Big Bang”, and from this, the proper and exact conditions were met to allow for the forming of the primordial ooze, which was struck (touched) by some force (lightning) and life began, and from that and through the evolutionary process we are here today.

    So far, no problems, Or is there?

    The Big Bang teaches or shows the explosion of this atomic sized particle into an expanding universe, with the understanding that the laws of Physics apply and that what is expanding will also, at some time, contract back to the same small particle and will at some time explode again and the process will start all over again.

    If the process will continue, to expand and contract, then a logical conclusion is that the particle that we exploded from was an expanded universe of its own that collapsed.

    How many times has this happened? If you believe Evolution then you must also believe in an infinite number of pre-events, with and infinite number of events to follow. This explains the mathematical improbability of life starting from a single “Big Bang”.

    What evolution can’t or won’t explain is where the initial particle came from or what started the process.

    It couldn’t have been “Nothingness”, because a particle existed. The particle came from somewhere . Where??

    kommentaar kirjutas dinich — 2012-04-18 @ 17:16:17 | Vasta

    • The theory of evolution has nothing to say about how that initial living “particle” formed. Evolution’s concern is wholly regarding how life has changed since its origin. If you want to believe that “God” created that first life, then feel free — evolution doesn’t and won’t disagree with you as to that.

      Yes, there are scientists who wonder about and seek to investigate that initial life origin, but that — much less the Big Bang — is beyond the scope of the theory of evolution per se.

      kommentaar kirjutas Michael McNeil — 2012-04-18 @ 17:29:14 | Vasta

    • Evolution is not an explanation for the initial starting process of the universe, but what has occurred *since* the process began. The Darwinian theory works for evolution of this planet since it’s initial beginnings, but was not meant to explain the cosmological theory of the big bang.

      kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-18 @ 17:55:13 | Vasta

    • You DO understand that, as the evolutionary theory stands…your pet cat and that lion…(or your pet dog and that wolf) cannot exist together…right? They can only live millions of years from eachother down the evolutionary chain.

      Again…Evolution is just adults with wild imaginations. “Hey that cat looks an awful lot like a lion! It must’ve evolved from it! No where there could be diverse families, sub-families, genus and breeds within the animal kingdom”

      kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 00:58:56 | Vasta

      • “your pet cat and that lion…(or your pet dog and that wolf) cannot exist together”…. uh, what?! Why cannot they exist together? Lion didn’t “turn” into a cat, they share a common ancestor (which was far more like the cat than lion).

        I think you’ve failed to grasp even the very basics of biology, not to mention evolution. An individual doesn’t change. The change is spread across generations – small, gradual changes to better fit into current (ever-changing) ecological niche. Depending on changes in environment and some specific genetic conditions, change can be faster or slower.

        “Evolution is just adults with wild imaginations. “Hey that cat looks an awful lot like a lion! It must’ve evolved from it!” Except that we do have loads of proof for the common ancestor for cat and lion. Genetics, anatomy and biochemistry all show bigger similarities between cat and lion, than, say, cat and dog or lion and wolf.

        Not to mention fossils – we know of Proailurus, the first catlike mammal about 30 million years ago. We know that subfamily Pantherinae (tiger, lion, leopards and jaguar) split from Felinae (true cats) six to ten millions years ago – which was probably the time for last common ancestor for house cat and lion.

        kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-19 @ 10:04:27 | Vasta

        • having common genetics and anatomy do nothing but what you said, show their similarities. I expect every type of flower, tree, or grain of dirt to have similar anatomy, biochemistry, and genetics. That in itself is IN NO WAY “proof” that those flowers evolved from eachother. Simply proof that they are from the same family/genus/sub-family of the plant world. You also cannot confuse basic adaptation and cross-breeding with evolution. That’s not how it “works”.

          kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 18:50:07 | Vasta

          • What? Really?

            So, I guess that might be the root of the confusion. Yes, that’s how evolution works. Evolution is taking a whole bunch of adaptation and looking at the cumulative effect. That’s actually all evolution is, just that times a huge amount.

            kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-19 @ 18:52:39 | Vasta

            • So if people of two races mate, then that’s evolution?

              kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 18:56:24 | Vasta

              • Huh? Please, do apply at least some logic and thought before commenting.

                kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-19 @ 19:07:26 | Vasta

                • i rest my case about none of you agreeing on the theory, by the guy below you taking this the different route.

                  kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 19:15:20 | Vasta

              • Yes, sort of. It’s a fair bit more complex than that. For example, if people of two races (say asian and white) have a kid, that kid will visually have a lighter version of asian colouring, might be a bit taller, all that, than an average asian child. It will also likely have more slanted eyes, darker skin, a bit shorter, than the average white baby. Now, at this point the child has changed somewhat. Now, if a group of asian men and white women were separated from the mainstream populace for an extended period of time (generations) that averaging would probably become dominant. Now, that wouldn’t make them speciate, but it would make for a distinct population. That’s evolution. Now, if there was a specific trait that a few of them had – say one woman was freakishly short and there were a lot of caves that had food in them, which made it easier for the shorter children to reach, and you also had some sort of serious population pressure, like lack of food, in a very long time that population would probably end up being half asian/half white in most ways, but very short. When they were eventually re-discovered by the mainstream they would be freakishly short, since the short people got the most food, were able to have the most kids, so those genetic traits were passed on. Speciation is just a bunch of those changes happening. There is never a clear line in evolution between one species and the next, it’s such a gradual change. Usually it involves some form of geographic isolation, like being in a valley that gets cut off from the neighbouring areas by rockfall, or an isolated island, or some such. It can also happen with a major shift in environment.

                Wow, I didn’t realize people didn’t know that… it really makes the argument make so much more sense. If you don’t know what evolution actually is, it’s easy to argue against. Once it stops being a strawman it gets a lot harder though.

                kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-19 @ 19:09:50 | Vasta

                • See….That’s the problem. You’re literally claiming that EVERYTHING is evolution. It’s impossible to argue with. It’s no different than someone who argues that everything that happens is done by God. You simply see something happen and attribute it to your belief.

                  I’m sorry – but if crossbreeding is evolution…you guys have done a poor job of presenting it. (although, there’s no possible crossbreed explanation that shows how humans could have evolved.)

                  kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 19:18:50 | Vasta

                  • No, we haven’t done a poor job presenting it. In the end there are thousands and thousands of papers explaining this stuff (and no, it isn’t just cross-breeding, but essentially that’s what it is) but you haven’t read those. Those tell you all of this. Dawkins has several very plain language books on evolutionary biology that are aimed at a mainstream audience. You haven’t read those (how I know this is your questions don’t make the tiniest bit of sense if you had read them). No, we don’t claim everything is evolution, evolution has a very, very narrow definition, and the theory of evolution via natural selection an even narrower one. It just happens that favourable traits being passed from parent to child is the core of that definition.

                    I am going to make this very, very simple. There is a troop of primates. They are happy and content, but then a drought hits. One of the primates stands straighter than the other primates. This is a disadvantage in the trees, but not much of one. However, as food is scarce, they move onto the grassland (they aren’t as strong as the other apes and with resources being scarcer they are being out competed). Now, our straighter standing primate is able to see further, and his gait is actually really good for long distance running, so he is able to hunt a little better. That means he has more kids thna the others. His kids mostly stand a little straighter than everyone else, so they have more kids than the others. After a while, they have bred so much that all the descendants of that primate troop stand taller than the original primates. That’s a potential small piece of how humans happened. That’s what evolution is. There just isn’t anything else to it at all. It’s just a cumulation of small things like that, with the ones that give you an advantage where you are propagating because you have more kids. The bad traits will tend to die out (if one of the children of the tall standing primate had been born with clubfoot they would have had less children, so while the mutation for clubfoot can keep happening unless you are in a situation where clubfoot doesn’t matter you will never have a population where everyone has clubfoot based on that). This is the core of the theory of evolution via natural selection. Evolution itself is not a theory, it is a fact… the theory of natural selection is the explanation for species diversity on earth. The reason you think it’s just everything is because you have never studied the theory at all.

                    kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-19 @ 19:52:12 | Vasta

            • Sorry – but I might chalk this up to the other “genius” part of the evolutionary theory.

              “Take the basic merging of genetics, and claim it as evolution. I’m a good athlete, but my wife is a good dancer. Our daughter can dance and play soccer….EVOLUTION!”

              Yah…I’m not buying that garbage. That doesn’t propose the literal morphing of one species to another. Simply the adaptation of genetics. We could call that evolution. Or we could call that “just the way it is”. I could also make up another name for it and claim it as my own theory. The point is, when I mix two great things, I expect a slightly better thing to come from it.

              kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 19:07:38 | Vasta

              • “having common genetics and anatomy do nothing but what you said, show their similarities. I expect every type of flower, tree, or grain of dirt to have similar anatomy, biochemistry, and genetics” Boy, I am glad that you aren’t asking anything smart, as then I would actually have to think!

                So, according to your logic, genetics and anatomy of penguin, dolphin, tuna and shark should be similar, as they look alike and share similar environment. Except… they’re not. They clearly show that penguin is a bird, dolphin is a mammal, tuna is a bone fish and shark a cartilaginous fish. Each has distinct anatomic differences from their respective phyla, all are genetically further from each-other than, say, penguin is from ostrich or dolphin from a man. You may want to look up “convergent evolution”.

                Sorry, but I see no reason do discuss anything with you until you:
                a) Get high-school level of education in biology
                b) Actually use your brain before typing things

                Don’t feed the troll. I think I will follow the maxim “Never argue with an idiot… they bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience”

                kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-19 @ 19:42:47 | Vasta

                • Funny. My logic doesn’t tell me that penguins, dolphins, tuna and sharks are similar at all. Guess the “basic reasoning” part of my brain evolved before yours,

                  kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 19:59:05 | Vasta

                  • And yet “flower, tree, or grain of dirt” are similar for you (not sure what dirt has to do with plants) even though there are trees that are far more different in all chemistry, genetics and phytotomy from flowers than, say, a rat is to a shark.

                    kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-19 @ 20:13:15 | Vasta

                    • I know it’s tough…but try to follow. I’ll try again…

                      I said “every type of” flower. So that would be like saying “every type of bird” or “every type of mammal” or “every type of bone fish” or “every type of cartilaginous fish”.

                      I wasn’t referring to them looking alike. I was referring to the fact that there are different types of familes/sub-families/genus/etc. in each species. The fact that they’re similar but different doesn’t in ANY way prove that they came from eachother or the same source.

                      Good luck….

                      kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 20:28:48

                    • So I’ve heard multiple theories on how long modern humans have been alive on this planet. But for the sake of agreement, I want one of you to tell me how long you say humans have been on this planet (And each continent would also be lovely). And if you agree to the Hardy-Weinberg Principle.

                      kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-21 @ 10:59:07

                    • Buzzkill: unless you’re giving a reason for asking a question easily answered using Google, I think you are just trolling and hence don’t need or deserve an answer.

                      kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-21 @ 11:29:05

                    • What I was gonna say is why didn’t humans that traveled to Europe, Asia, India (Subcontinent), and the Americas speciate from those that stayed in Africa?

                      kommentaar kirjutas Buzzkill — 2012-04-21 @ 17:33:24

  60. Reblogged this on While you were sleeping and commented:
    “Evolution has been proven…it does not require belief”

    kommentaar kirjutas Dianne Wing — 2012-04-19 @ 03:15:39 | Vasta

  61. tharpey:

    What I really don’t understand is why you keep posting these inane and laughable arguments, instead of picking up a book about evolution? Is your faith really so weak that the first paragraph would shatter it completely? If you are so sure that you are right and all the millions of scientists are wrong, why are you so afraid of learning anything about the topic?

    Even a basic college textbook should do the trick (albeit, as it seems you don’t have any understanding of biology, a high-school biology textbook is probably needed first). Or if you are not afraid the boogeyman Richard Dawkins, try “The Greatest Show on Earth” – it doesn’t have basic information on evolution, but it would serve as a good introduction nonetheless.

    After you’ve read those books (or even just one), please come back to this blog and give your reasons why those books were wrong – please?

    kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-19 @ 20:44:04 | Vasta

    • Again…you’re assumptions and misconceptions are hilarious. I do find it funny that you assume that “faith” is the barrier between accepting evolution.

      And to point to “a college textbook” as the answer is fairly laughable.

      kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 21:32:41 | Vasta

      • So. You will not study, instead you come up with idiotically bad arguments. Rather sad and you are very obviously scared of learning.

        Yes. I think you are a rather obvious religious nutcase – probably Catholic, as they tend to be most afraid to use their own brains.

        kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-19 @ 21:46:27 | Vasta

        • lol…catholic would be the farthest description on earth.

          do you seriously need me to break down how incredibly inaccurate text books have been shown to be over the past decades? is that actually necessary here? just because an idea is “widely accepted” by whoever funded the text book you’re using, has no bearing on it’s factual accuracy or legitimacy

          kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 22:01:54 | Vasta

      • If you had the basic knowledge that a college textbook contains it would be. Since you clearly don’t (nor a high school text book for that matter) it’s actually a pretty good answer. Read a bit, find out what evolution actually is, then try commenting intelligently.

        kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-19 @ 22:06:41 | Vasta

        • again….”do you seriously need me to break down how incredibly inaccurate text books have been shown to be over the past decades? is that actually necessary here? just because an idea is “widely accepted” by whoever funded the text book you’re using, has no bearing on it’s factual accuracy or legitimacy”

          kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-19 @ 22:12:26 | Vasta

          • “do you seriously need me to break down how incredibly inaccurate text books have been shown to be over the past decades”

            Yes, please do. Pick, say, a well-known and widely used year 2000+ textbook on evolution and show how inaccurate it is.

            kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-19 @ 22:18:53 | Vasta

            • Funny how tharpey suddenly stopped commenting after being asked to show the inaccuracies. I sincerely hope nothing untoward hasn’t happened to him.

              kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-20 @ 08:15:53 | Vasta

              • I stopped commenting because I took your advice about arguing with idiots. (which apparently you didn’t heed yourself.)

                kommentaar kirjutas tharpey — 2012-04-20 @ 23:16:35 | Vasta

                • And the fact that you actually had to prove something you said was purely coincidental. Riiiiiiiight.

                  kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-20 @ 23:54:06 | Vasta

                  • People like this always have to prove something — and they hardly ever understand the fact they just can’t.

                    kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-21 @ 00:46:45 | Vasta

          • See, here’s the thing: if the textbook is innacurate, then you need to know what’s in it to show that. It’s like if we were arguing about the bible and I kept citing things Vishnu said. At some point you would probably stop and tell me to actually read the bible, because all of my arguments were completely irrelevant to Christianity in general, let alone the bible. You have been citing Vishnu at us non-stop from the start. It doesn’t make you smart, or knowlegable, it makes you an idiot. You can correct that by actually finding stuff out, but you are choosing not to do that. It makes me sad.

            kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-19 @ 22:25:22 | Vasta

            • Also, I hate the fact that this site over rides my spell check function. I have come to rely on it so much that when I am typing fast I don’t really read what I have written, just look for red lines. Now I notice that I misspelled knowledgeable. Probably other stuff too. Damn technology for making me lazy ;)

              kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-19 @ 22:28:41 | Vasta

              • Sorry, this is not under my control. At least in Firefox, spell-check works fine, though.

                kommentaar kirjutas Sander — 2012-04-19 @ 23:06:00 | Vasta

                • I don’t blame you. It’s firefox under linux 64 bit… some sites it seems the spell check just fails on.

                  kommentaar kirjutas Traverse Davies — 2012-04-19 @ 23:11:19 | Vasta

          • The charge of inaccuracy was given against high school textbooks in Texas in 2003, and “intelligent design” advocates asked that several drawings and photos be removed from the texts. Biologists from the University of Texas pointed out that the artist had been found to have made some inaccurate drawings, but not all of that artist’s work is inaccurate. In any case, they also found modern photos of stuff claimed to be inaccurately portrayed, to put in the books instead. So instead of taking out photos claimed by creationists to “inaccurately” show evolution, kids in Texas now get the photos that show evolution.

            That wasn’t what the creationists wanted. In the next round, they shut up about inaccuracies.

            Textbooks in biology have gotten very accurate, especially about evolution, over the past two decades. Alas, they are not strident enough in advocating evolution.

            kommentaar kirjutas Ed Darrell — 2012-04-22 @ 00:16:31 | Vasta

  62. [...]  Sander wrote an article on evolution – (tl;dr: He doesn’t “believe” in evolution,  – it is a scientific proven theory without [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas Why Faith? | | This life I lead ...This life I lead … — 2012-04-19 @ 20:53:14 | Vasta

  63. I explain one aspect of human evolution quite succinctly at http://figmince.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/why-white-people-cant-dance.html.

    kommentaar kirjutas FigMince — 2012-04-21 @ 00:35:09 | Vasta

  64. A few links on Evolution — for those that are interested:

    NOVA What Darwin Never Knew http://youtu.be/I91Huv4jbCk

    BBC – What Darwin Didn’t Know http://youtu.be/nl2a4C7X8l4

    Discover Magazine: Evolution in 2 minutes: http://discovermagazine.com/contests/evolution-in-two-minutes-or-less/

    Also

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    kommentaar kirjutas Michelle — 2012-04-21 @ 15:00:59 | Vasta

  65. [...] Great post. I think there’s a bit of a language fail (at least in English) for the way we talk about science, and that’s why people say they “believe” in things like evolution even though you rarely hear people say they “believe” in gravity. [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas What I’ve Been Reading: April 23 | amandatheatheist — 2012-04-23 @ 21:12:49 | Vasta

  66. [...] couple weeks ago, one of the most visited posts on the WordPress domain was cleverly titled “I don’t believe in evolution.”  (Click on the link if you’d like to read it.)  It was well-written post, clear and [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas With Love & Relationships, When Is Belief Not Enough? « Sexuality & Love in the Arts — 2012-05-07 @ 23:28:36 | Vasta

  67. Reblogged this on The BitterSweet End and commented:
    I’ve decided once a month, to reblog one post that I thought was exceptional from the previous month. This is the following one I choose

    kommentaar kirjutas thebiblereader — 2012-06-21 @ 17:55:34 | Vasta

  68. [...] l’auteur mais je l’avoue, elle n’est pas de moi. Elle est de Sander Säde, qui est l’auteur d’un billet du même nom. Du moins, c’est ce que Google m’a laissé [...]

    Pingback-viide kirjutas I don’t believe in evolution | La Poutre dans l'oeil — 2013-04-02 @ 12:11:45 | Vasta


Selle postituse kommentaaride RSS-voog. TrackBack URI

Lisa kommentaar

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Muuda )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Muuda )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Muuda )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Muuda )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers