If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

 (Artbell.com) 414 More: PSA
•       •       •

4889 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2002 at 12:46 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

Jre, Friskysheep
Does that theory really disregard both logic and scientific research? I wouldn't say that. If you assume the sun is a stationary point, then the earth revolves around the sun, and so do the rest of the planets. If you assume the Earth is stationary, you can view the sun as revolving around the earth without much difficulty. The orbits of the rest of the planets can be accurately calculated according to mathematical formulas. Those formulas are *much* more complex than if we assume the sun as the stationary, but they do work. Put another way, all you need to do is a linear transformation, change your coordinate system's origin, and everything still works. If you've taken a linear algebra course (matrix work, mostly), you're probably familiar with coordinate changes, changing your basis, and similar work. It's the same thing.
Church fathers called Galileo's heliocentric theory heresy because they thought the Earth should be the center of creation. Scientists and astronomers accepted the heliocentric theory because it made their math much easier. Also, because the motions of other solar bodies were less well understood at Galileo's time, there were errors they hadn't corrected for in their theories. These errors were understood and fixed much more easily in a heliocentric system. In the modern geocentric description, there are no errors; the math all works out. It can correctly predict the location of any known star, planet, or celestial body. Work it out yourself if you don't believe me. I personally wouldn't want to try, because it's much harder to deal with. That's the one reason a heliocentric system is a better model of the solar system. But saying "this point is the center" or "A revolves around B" is pretty arbitrary. It depends entirely on your point of reference, which can be arbitrarily chosen.

I truely feel sorry for you religious types.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out that evolution is a valid scientific theory, and I am an atheist, to hopefully forstall some of the inevitable name-calling.

That was a very convincing argument you put forward there Radish.

[image from sinfest.net too old to be available]

Jre, I haven't read Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things".

No, I'm just skeptical all the time. I'll check if it's in the library.

Anyone who doesn't see the truth about our origins should get an education.

Recap: The citizens of the most powerful nation in the world are still debating Darwin's theory of evolution - a theory presented 142 years ago in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Amazingly, it remains highly controversial in today's America. People who refuse to accept it (mainly Christian fundamentalists) want their children to be taught biblical creationism as an alternative theory.

No, seriously. I'm not joking.

[image from rb.com too old to be available]

Creationism is not a science, and it is a fairy tale for adults.

I had nothing better to do, so I wrote this little article about evolution:

But I guess it's not a proof either :(

(it's actually Darwin's Origin of Species from Project Gutenberg...)

Evolution is a religion? Say wha??!! I guess that makes Darwin our Jesus figure? I don't think so. Although if Darwin was alive today some born-again goober would try to kill him on his day off from shooting OB/GYNs.
The difference between science and religion is that scientists don't condemn you to eternal damnation for questioning their theories/beliefs. They openly welcome skepticism and hard questions. And religions?
When they start teaching geometry in church then we will teach creationism in public schools. Except for the hillfark states that already do. Nothing says "Look how intellectual we are" quite like teaching creationism in school.
Bunch of farkin' Cletus's. This guy is living proof that one doesn't have to be all that smart to make a web page.

As I'm sure many of you already realize, you could throw many many pages of proofs at this retard and he wouldn't pay up. He's just trying to stir up shiat.

Yosarian: Hey, what do you have against Cletus? Cletus rocks, man! He flaps in the night!!

I doubt he would put the bux up as well.

Another fundamentalist asscrack.

Bhamv - You're right. The cartoon stereotyped hillbilly Cletus deserves better than to be compared to this moron. How about this: stupid Flanders.

His money is safe. You can't prove a myth. The question of origins is a question of history NOT a question of science. Science can only suggest what MIGHT have happened.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. ~ Albert Einstein

Creationuts and Fundamentalcases should be sterilized for the betterment of society.

Step 1. God
...
Step 3. Humans

(see: underwear gnomes)

heheh I don't feel sorry for religious types, it's their life. Keep that farking shiat out of my face or yours will be rearranged.

It's going to be far easier to 'prove' evolution than 'God', humans are still killing each other over which 'God' is the 'God' after all, stupid.

Some religions are ok and some are farked, Christians being the worst and least civilized of them all.

Women go for tall, dark, and handsome guys. Guys dig women with big boobies.

You can't "prove" evolution. It's top-down science, not reductionist. It just makes sense to anyone not blinded by religious dogma. :)

DrFalken, about that dolphin challenge again..

Using any man-made technology, build a spaceship which would allow you to travel to the Sun, land on it (well, fly into the Sun until its density makes it impossible to continue), pick up a bucketful of stuff you meet there and travel home.

Maybe the technology would allow us to do that at one point of time, but what's the point? We can't live on the Sun. We can't mine for fossil fuels there. If we need energy, there are easier ways. For us, the capability of adopting the living conditions on the Sun simply isn't important.

Likewise, for dolphins, there is no point of flying. They can get along juuuust fine living in the ocean and eating fish the old-fashioned way. Keep in mind that necessity is the mother of all invention. Likewise in evolution. The man started to use tools, wear animal furs, and basically reached the current level of tool use and intelligence out of necessity, because without weapons, fire, etc the primitive men were little more than easy snacks for the predators. Dolphins and other animals, they don't need airplanes. For what they're trying to do, catch fish and live in the ocean, they already have all the necessary adjustments, and intelligence to spare. Just like we have everything necessary to get along on the face of the Earth, we simply don't need to colonize the Sun, and couldn't care less about the prospect.

Btw, the reason why I'm writing this is that it would take a group of men some serious thinking, planning, teamwork and training to catch fish nearly as good as the dolphins do if they were in their skin. Catch a Discovery special someday, it's rather fascinating.

I don't think you can prove anything beyond all possible doubt. Proofs are only possible when certain rules are agreed upon, such as in math.

You're quite correct in that we can take Earth as the reference point, and the Sun circle around the Earth.

However, in that case, it's not just the Sun that circles, but the rest of the universe with it. It's like saying that I'm always remaining stationary, but I'm just rolling the Earth below me with my feet a little, when I need something, such as a beer shop, to come to *me*.

Damnit!! To think I missed this thread ... this guy spoke at my parents church via video last year for a while. I'd heard of what a nutcase/fraud he was so put together some of the evidence debunking him and showed it to my parents. Hilarity ensued.

Does evolution say anywhere that there is no God?

I don't know what happened but I do question religon.

XYNHR - According to Discovery Channel dolphins can't hold a candle to chimps when it comes to IQ. And I don't see chimps creating art, building skyscrapers, traveling in space, etc.
(a hundred monkeys with a hundred typewriters.....).

Throughout history smarter, more advanced civilizations have dominated the less technologically advanced ones. Smarter species have dominated the less intelligent ones. Mankind could eradicate all the dolphins on the planet. Could they do the same to us? They're smart as far as animals go. But then again, that's not saying much. I wonder if they believe in God?

I'll give this clown even more if he can get Lord God Jehovah down here to explain to me in person that he created the world in a week.

Just look at people while they sit in traffic! We look like a bunch of monkies! Not mud or a rib!

1. Have you read the Q1,2,3 scriptures? Simply put the Gospel of Q is the earliest known writings of Christianity, written by people who actually heard the oral teachings of the historic Jesus. Why do Christians want to pretend the Q scriptures not exist? Because they talk about Jesus as a wise philospher/teacher, nothing else.

To summarize Q1, the most controversial:
What is remarkable about Q1 is that the original Christians appeared to be centered totally on concerns about their relationships with God and with other people, and their preparation for the Kingdom of God on earth. Totally absent from their spiritual life are almost all of the factors that we associate with Christianity today. There is absolutely no mention of (in alphabetic order): adultery, angels, apostles, baptism, church, clergy, confirmation, crucifixion, demons, disciples, divorce, Eucharist, great commission to convert the world, healing, heaven, hell, incarnation, infancy stories, John the Baptist, Last Supper, life after death, Mary and Joseph and the rest of Jesus' family, magi, miracles, Jewish laws concerning behavior, marriage, Messiah, restrictions on sexual behavior, resurrection, roles of men and women, Sabbath, salvation, Satan, second coming, signs of the end of the age, sin, speaking in tongues, temple, tomb, transfiguration, trial of Jesus, trinity, or the virgin birth.

Jesus is described as a believer in God, but there are no indications that he was considered more than a gifted human being. His role was not as a Messiah or Lord but philosopher-teacher. The Gospel contains strong statements which are anti-family and which oppose Jewish religious rules. Rewards and punishments are described as occurring in this life, not after death. The "Kingdom of God" is described as a type of utopian society on earth which his followers were creating, not some future location in heaven after death. God is presented as a loving father with an intimate concern for the welfare of believers. The Holy Spirit is mentioned, but as a gift given by God, not as a separate person of the Trinity. There is no reference to Jesus' death having any redeeming function; in fact, there is no mention of the crucifixion at all.

this is from ReligiousTolerance.org Gospel of Q

Or read Burton Mack's "Who wrote the New Testament"

2. Can you locate where each writer of each book in the new testament lived and when he lived? Actually most Christian historians know these things, and they only serve to prove that most of the writers of the bible knew no one that actually knew Jesus. Play the children's game 'telephone' where you tell your first friend something and they pass it on.. now imagine this as an oral story repeated over 100 years.

3. Christianity was developed by pagans. Sabbath is on Sunday because Emperor Constantine of Rome changed the day so it would fall on the day of worship for the sun god, Apollo (whom Constantine truthfully worshipped). Christmas is a pagan holiday, so is easter.

4. There is valid proof that various pieces of the old testament came directly from the Mesopotamians. The ten commandments are a modified version of Hammurabi's code, for example.

Why do christians spend so much of their time trying to refute a scientific debate on evolution when they don't even understand their own religion?

I'll give the friggin Catholics 250 grand if they stop molesting the nations children, friggin nutcase, godfearing perverts.

Not one of these articles again!

That's it, I'm ignoring this whole thread.

I'll give Cerryl 250 grand if he/she/it will stop trolling...

Not to mention that Constantine edited the Bible heavily. If you want to follow the true bible as 'god' supposedly wrote it, better get a copy before the romans modified it so it actually was consistant and made sense.

Go get screwed by caothlic priest kidman, Ive submitted more articles than you.

So there :)

semper ubi sub ubi.

Siggy

Not to mention that Constantine edited the Bible heavily. If you want to follow the true bible as 'god' supposedly wrote it, better get a copy before the romans modified it so it actually was consistant and made sense.

What is your evidence for this?

Siggy, your statement makes no sense, if there in fact was a 'god', what that piece of yawning fiction called the bible contained, would be moot.

this is the stupidest website ever. he not only wants proof of biological evolution he wants proof concerning planetary evolution.

"Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust. "

basically what this person wants is for some1to prove that god dosen't exist, impossible under the current circumstances. smells like a pathetic attempt at saying, "well you know, CHRISTIANITY can explain all my questions really."

btw planetary formation has been observed already in the crab nebula, no sightings of any finger of god pushing strings have been recorded.

I love this guy's requirements. I offer 50 grand if you can prove Creationism. To prove this you will have to :

a) Produce a photograph of Adam in the Garden of Eden, or an affidavit signed by God and Adam stating that God did in fact create Adam in his image.

0r

b) Procude a photo of the first chicken, or at least the pedigree papers stating that said chicken had no mother or father and was not born from an egg laid by a chicken-like predecessor.

I don't claim to have any answers, but to say that the bible is a perfect piece of work that was not edited in any way and contains the true words of god and Jesus is ridiculous.

I can site numerous books, webpages, documenteries, etc... that all talk about Constantine editing the bible. Now you can believe one of two things... either

1) Constantine's scholars only did very minor insubstantial edits (or none at all) to the christian bible

2) various sections were in fact changed to make it more friendly to an large government such as Rome was at the time.

If you cannot discount 2, then you have to consider the possibility that the bible is not the true word of god, but in fact edited and therefore is heretical.

This is just an exercise in futility. Christians trying to disprove a scientific theory (why don't you try to disprove Quantum theory too while your at it.. it's accepted as fact but not 'proven'). I can just as easily try to disprove the factuality of the Bible. No Christian would ever accept prove that the bible is false, nor can you disprove a theory that is evolving day to day.

There are is one kind of fundy nonsense getting repeated frequently here:

these individuals suggesting evolution theory is on the same level of "theory" as creationism.

This is not only untrue, but obviously untrue, and current high school curriculum would explain why this is so if they had paid attention. Evolutionary theory was created out of observation and study of living things of all types and the behaviors of specific organisms, some of the information was also added from fossil remains, but this information is most often used to make guesses about life form placement into the already established idea of evolution, not to prove it. It's entire existence is a description of knowledge gained in step by step scientific methods. It doesn't claim anything about itself, only displays what IS and what IS HAPPENING, that we can observe and know as fact, and then extends the idea that this could have occured on the same scale on a longer time frame. There is no "faith" required for evolution, because it does not suppose anything that there is no evidence for. We can observe evolution of species in nature, in a lab, and occuring right now. The logical response is to theorize how it may have occured over millions-billions of years. Interestingly enough, at 3 different high schools that I attended, and 2 jr/middle schools this was explained clearly. Apparently the fundies either weren't paying attention, or their parents/churches/families dived in on their teachines and corrupted them.
Creationism has not one piece of factual or scientific evidence. It is based solely on folklore handed down orally then written and now taught in religious institutions. Nothing about it is based on any fact that exists now, observably, nor any historical evidence that has been found.

Evolution = educated guess, logically made from gathered data

creationism = folklore without any basis in fact

If you argue that evolution, being an educated guess, shouldn't be taught as fact, then we need to stop teaching gravity, friction, much of physics, chemistry and biology. We'll have to stop nutrition courses as well as health classes. All of this is educated guessing, based on data that heaps itself up and is improved over time. None of it was pulled out of the blue by the local shaman and preserved through faith and dogma. The fact that fundy mythology is at odds with some of the best information we've been able to compile shows 2 things:

1) the existence of religious folks who accept both and find them compatible shows they don't necessarily negate each other in a religious (read: swiss cheese) mind.

2) perhaps the religion is wrong.

Human sacrifices were once thought to bring rain. When it was figured out that wasn't true, it stopped happening and being believed.

Anyway, the way I see it, logical thought and religion are at odds. If you want to learn more about what is around you, you should start with a clean slate (as a species) and build from the ground up, piece by piece and make sure information works together. Religion doesn't and can't do this (at least not christianity) it simply declares "it is" and has no basis in fact.

there's nothing like the rich and ignorant

Daisyrae,
I assume you are referring to the article's author. I'd agree, except anyone could make this statement, worded as he has, since he's created an unsolvable puzzle. I could also make a similar challenge:

I'll pay 12 billion dollars to the first person who can circumnavigate the globe in the air, flying, unaided by anything and completely naked.

Religious types seem to think that faith is required for belief in just about anything, from Creationism to Evolution to String Theory. That isn't true.

You DO need to faith to justify Creationism as there is no evidence to support it at all. However, to believe in Evolution and String Theory faith is not required as there is substantial evidence to support these (actually, string theory has the added benefit if fitting in, mathematically, with the laws of physics... not too mention that it is far too difficult for an uneducated fundie to understand.) theories. You do not need faith to believe in something that has EVIDENCE to support it. Now, you can make a case that you need faith to believe that the current form of the theory of Evolution is 100% correct and unalterable. But, then again, that is stupid and no scientist thinks that.

No scientist will say the current theory of Evolution is flawless. No fundie will say the Bible is flawed. That pretty much says it all right there.

I think that it is interesting that Einstein thought that there was a higher power somewhere. He found it through complex math. Interesting?

BornAgainPagan
That reminds me of when I asked a math professor if he believed a certain mathematical statement was true. He said,
"It doesn't matter what I believe. It just is."

"Evolution flies in the face of pretty much every religion."

No, it doesn't. It only conflicts with extremist interpretations of western religions.

"Public schools should leave it alone"

If you don't want public schools teaching your children science, don't send them to public schools. Don't fark up the public schools though; the rest of us would like our children to get decent educations.

"Don't have them preach evolution."

There's no preaching involved.

"It's not much different than preaching buddhism or christianity."

Of course there is. One is a scientific theory shown in biology classes. The other two are religions mentioned in history or comparitive religion classes.

"btw, assuming that micro-evolution somehow supports macro-evolution is plain ignorance. If I trace the path of a water particle in a pipe, i might see it go up, down, sideways, backwards. Watching it for 2 inches, I can't try to predict what it will do next or where it came from exactly. Only when I look at it from the whole pipe do I see it basically goes in a straight line, with some bumps along the way. Same goes for micro-evolution and macro-evolution."

This pipe example really doesn't fit. It wouldn't look at all like a family tree or any kind of image of descendance.

Welstradamus, your 1+1+...=10 analogy assumes that macro-evolution is a direct path through organized micro-evolution. Even the evolution scientists will tell you that is not true. And no scientist has EVER seen a bacteria turn into a plant, or a lizard turn into a bird in any laboratory setting.

If you would like to name a barrier between micro and macro, please do. However, we know that series of mutations/selections can change an organism enough so that it cannot breed with it's former population. It can also change so that it's feeding habits change, it's mode of transportation changes, etc. One of the animals labs use most often is fruit flies (for their quick breeding cycle). A group of 6-legged, 2-winged, fruit flies can be changes into 4-legged, wingless, meat-eating flies which can no longer breed with the original guys. This shows a significant change in a very short amount of time.

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.