Creationism ‘ The empty cage ‘

July 3rd, 2007 · 186 Comments · images, pseudoscience

We look forward to seeing what He comes up with.
cage creationism

______________

______________

Tags:

186 responses so far ↓

1 skeptic // Jul 5, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Here’s an idea for another sign…

“The Evolution Zoo Presents: The Half-Man, Half-Ape

Since people evolved from apes, and both apes and humans currently exist, we should logically expect to see several intermediary species between apes and men. We haven’t ever found any, but we figure they all live somewhere, maybe in the Amazonian jungle. As soon as we find them, we’ll put them in this cage. Check back later.”
2 lofi // Jul 6, 2007 at 12:47 am

this doesn’t make any sense
3 lg huxley // Jul 6, 2007 at 12:47 am

Why?

Why do you say that people evolved from apes?

Please site.
4 John // Jul 6, 2007 at 12:54 am

Wow “Skeptic”, I didn’t realise that in your case, your nickname was synonymous with “ignorant” as well. The theory of evolution (when it comes to explaining man’s current state) doesn’t state that man evolved from the apes you see around us today. It states that man and the apes today had a common ancestor (a.k.a THE MISSING LINK), and that the evolutionary line split into different directions, one which eventually spawned humans, and the other(s) which eventually spawned today’s primates.

Also evolution takes A LONG FREAKIN’ time (if it happens in 10,000 years, that’s normally considered damn quick), so putting an ape in a cage and checking back in a few days isn’t going to produce any results, and scientists don’t claim that it will. However the bible claims that God created the entire Earth, including its animals in just a number of days, so there isn’t any excuse for God to not be able to slap an animal in there in such a short amount of time.

Maybe the reason you’re a skeptic is because you just don’t have a goddamn clue about the inner-workings of what you are skeptic of in the first place.

Oh yeah, and did I mention you’re a fucking idiot?
5 darwin award // Jul 6, 2007 at 12:58 am

funny to see a creationist calling himself skeptic.
6 skeptic's skeptic // Jul 6, 2007 at 1:01 am

“we should logically expect to see several intermediary species”

No, we shouldn’t. They’re called “intermediate” species because they’ve evolved into something else.

Scientists have discovered twelve species of hominids whose DNA is within 98% identical. Maybe it’s just a coincidence. That and tens of thousands of other facts backing up evolution. All a fluke.
7 Realist // Jul 6, 2007 at 1:08 am

Here’s an idea, skeptic…

People didn’t evolve from any form of apes that currently exist. About 5-8 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and modern apes diverged to form the 2 separate lineages we know today.

So, we should NOT logically expect to see several intermediary species between apes and men. Why don’t you read a basic science book about evolution before you write such nonsense?
8 rassy // Jul 6, 2007 at 1:30 am

skeptic you ignoramus, men and apes are descended from a common ancestor, and I’ll explain this nice and simple like, that means that men aren’t descended from apes, so there would not be any intermediary ’species’…
love the cage!
9 emily // Jul 6, 2007 at 1:37 am

@skeptic

your ignorance is showing. go read up on human evolution, and then maybe you can make sarcastic remarks that aren’t completely asinine.
10 Monkeyman // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:12 am

Skeptic - I won’t go on about how ignorant you are (i feel thats been proven by others) But i’d just like to add that there is actually a fairly good fossil record of the evolution of Homo Sapians (thats people by the way), ranging from near ‘ape’ like, through the evolution of Bipedalism, larger brain capacity, first use of tools, first known ‘burial’ the list goes on and on.

My point is ALL of these fossils or fossil sites are evidence of the link/evolution between ‘apes’ (not modern day species) and Humans. These my dear skeptic are your missing intermediary species.
11 Matt // Jul 6, 2007 at 7:19 am

The cage is for ’skeptic’.

Hop in! There’s plenty of locks!
12 eye-of-horus // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:34 am

There’s no problem here:

You, Skeptic, into the cage!
13 will // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:58 am

Why can’t these religious nuts except scientific fact? to busy burning books, telling women they dont have a choice about their own body, or maybe they are just so closed minded that the idea of a magic man in the sky seems logical. im not saying their isnt a higher power, but thats no reason to form a belief structure that cannot be changed. We dont have all the answers, and neither does god, because as much as you claim it, HE ISNT TALKING TO YOU!
14 Think // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:59 am

To everyone but skeptic,

If evolution has all of these facts backing it up and it is so obvious to you all then why is it still debated not only among non-scientist but also among scientist?

Just a word of advise for you all. Calling people names and putting them down does not help make your argument, it only gives you less credibility for not being able to carry on an adult conversation.
15 Munan // Jul 6, 2007 at 11:41 am

To everyone.
Evolution is scientific fact. Everyone is looking at it from the wrong standpoint.
Did God create the heavens and the Earth? Yes.
Did we, as a species, evolve to fit our surroundings? Absolutely.
Evolution is not the answer to how.. It’s the answer to why.
Any human with a soul knows there is more to life than what we see. Call is God, or anything else you like. Whatever it is, it gave us life. I choose to not presume to name it. I just thank it.
But then, evolution took over and we became the beings we are now, capable of recognizing that we aren’t an accident.
There are so many other things that should be debated other than this continual nonsense.
There is no right or wrong here. We exist, now let’s feed some hungry people and rebuild New Orleans. You know, things that matter to the other 6 billion evolved, created beings on this planet.

But that’s just my opinion. What do I know? I’m a Buddhist.
16 Realist // Jul 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm

@ Think:

Who are all these “scientists” still debating about the theory of evolution? “Non-scientists” should read a book about human evolution before making any ignorant claims about evolution.

Calling an ignorant person an ignoramous does not make any of our arguments less credible. Skeptic IS ignorant regarding the theory of evolution. He should simply read about a book about human evolution before making such an ignorant statement.

I believe the simplest proof of evolution is the presence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. “God” didn’t create these antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria; they evolved! Evolution is occurring right now!
17 Hijinx // Jul 6, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Someone once wiser than myself once said, pertaining to this debate, “i like schizos and the circus…”

I’m just kidding. That wasn’t relevant at all.
18 Kal // Jul 6, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Evolution versus creationism is an endless debate… because it’s opinion versus fact and opinions are not debatable. We should wait about 100 years more to see some significant financial problems in Vatican.
19 Bailey // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:03 pm

To think

The reason that scientists debate evolution is because they are scientist. Science is the theory of debate, reason and evidence. Unlike religion scientists can always question their facts and with enough compelling ones can change their facts accordingly.

Plus you seem to suggest that scientists are debating whether evolution actually happens, which is simply not true. Scientists are debating the mechanisms and pathways of evolution, changing families and species of living things. Evolution has happened while humans have watched e.g. bacteria which have evolved to digest nylon and also a species of mosquito which lives in the london underground and now cannot breed with it’s ancestor which still lives above ground. Another interesting example is of the herring gull look it up it is an example of ring distribution.

Cheers pete
20 No, you think // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:09 pm

@Think

That’s because science is an ever-improving process where theories are revised and strengthened through debate and observation. Debate in science is not a sign of weakness, it’s its greatest strength.
21 Paul // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:09 pm

To what Think said.

People debate evolution because nobody can be 100% sure in the same way you can’t be 100% sure there is a god but I’m willing to put my money on evolution. You only need to look at radical Muslims and their beliefs, I’m sure nobody here would agree that non-believers deserve to be beheaded and made to suffer. Religion is responsible for more bloodshed through the ages than just about anything else.

I’m more of an athiest but open to all theories whereas people of a particular religion have one set view and anything that doesn’t fall into that is therefore invalid.

I think I know who’s opinion I’d value more.
22 jane // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:10 pm

also “skeptic” (who will probably never read this)

go make your own art, don’t copy someone elses.

sorry i guess thats what christianity did, steal from the pagans. some lessons cant be unlearned.
23 Sean // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:12 pm

“Since people evolved from apes, and both apes and humans currently exist…”

No. The ‘apes’ we evolved from do not exist anymore.

This statement highlights one of the most common misunderstandings as to the mechanism of natural selection; the idea that humans as they exist today evolved from other apes as they exist today. This simply is not what happened.

Humans and other apes, such as chimpanzees, evolved simultaneously from offshoots of a third form of ape which no longer exists. Random mutations in this ape lead to a division of the species. One group became us and other protohominids, and the other group became chimps and orangutans and bonobo sexmonkeys and so forth.

So the reason they can’t find a half-man/half-chimp is because it doesn’t exist. It never existed. We didn’t evolved from chimps. We evolved from a much earlier ape that went extinct millions of years ago. What we are looking for (and continue to find) are fossil evidence of evolutionary states somewhere between human and this unnamed extinct ape.

But if that’s too complicated, you could just look through the DNA evidence. There’s a lot of it, so you may want to get a sandwich first.

“If evolution has all of these facts backing it up and it is so obvious to you all then why is it still debated not only among non-scientist but also among scientist?”

Can you cite a serious scientific debate on the validity of evolutionary theory?
24 ThinkHarder // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Think: It’s spelled “advice,” not “advise,” and there is no debate among scientists (note the use of an “s” to indicate the plural form of a word) as to whether or not evolution occurs. It’s old news my friend.

Munan: Thank you. Although I think you meant to say that evolution answers “how” not “why.” I could not agree more. There is no real disagreement between religion and science.

The problem occurs when people want to believe every single word of the as if their literal meaning were true. Even Jesus used parables people. The crazed athiests also share some blame, in my opinion (Richard Dawkins). Their all-out war on religion is a bit of an overreaction, but that could be debated. When it comes down to it, humans can’t figure everything out. So we should get as far as we can, but we simply don’t have enough information, senses, or brain capacity to know all there is to know.

Just relax and be good to each other. No matter what, we are here on this Earth together, we have shared some awesome process of creation, whatever it is, and we will share an incredible future. So relax and help someone out today!
25 Greg // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:33 pm

to Think.

Where is it still debated? Not in the scientific community that’s for sure.

Theory does not mean “Not True Yet” it means “Here’s this really solid idea and let’s all take a look at it and see how it fits the real world.”

Well it fits.

Nobody has come up with ANY evidence against the theory. ALL the evidence any scientist has EVER found supports the theory of evolution.

So again I ask, where is it debated?
26 skeptic // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:37 pm

I’m the skeptic that know. I’m so smart I try to make funny.
27 Nogood // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:42 pm

My God has the power to create things that appear to be billions of years old even if they are not.

My God has the power to create extremely complex things like human life and blades of grass.

My God has a son named Jesus.

If he made everything clear to us it would not take faith to believe in Him.
28 Jacob // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Well, you’re not a very good Buddhist, Munan. At least, not if you actually think what you posted - “Did God create the heavens and the Earth? Yes.”

See - http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm

It irks me when people say “I’m Buddhist” to try and rationalize some desire to just say that “everything is equally true”. It’s just another way of turning off your brain and ceasing to use any semblance of critical thought… and it’s certainly not what the Buddha taught!

If you’re going to claim to follow the Buddha, take some time to learn what he actually said. Don’t just make up your own nonsense and claim it’s his teachings.

And, the same goes for those who claim to believe in the Bible, and those who claim to accept modern Science. Too few people actually examine the evidence and try to draw their own conclusions, on both sides of issues like this. It’s mostly just idiots running around spewing out things they’ve heard other people say.
29 Brand // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:42 pm

The THEORY of Evolution is not science fact. It is, on the other hand, the best theory or explanation of the data as we know it.

The strange thing about religious people is they always expect scientists to think in the primitive ways they do. Religious people have “faith” in their absolute beliefs. Conversely, Scientists are not so arrogant, and they desire only to prove or disprove their beliefs or more correctly, theories.

It is a “theory” until we have irrefutable proof. Something we may never have, but the search for knowledge is mans greatest achievement. Belief systems merely obscure or obstruct that search.

Religion, in all its forms, is a throwback to mans primitive past. When Man can’t explain something he invents a religion to explain it. Science is after Knowledge not Beliefs.

As man grows and throws off his primitive archaic belief systems, leaves this cradle called Earth and truly becomes a child of the Universe, he will do so with science and knowledge not with ignorant beliefs. Such beliefs merely retard human development.

We truly are Star dust.
30 Cove // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:44 pm

If any of you are realy stupid enought to belive in creationism. Please help evolution by not breeding. Thank You.
31 Cove // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Actually if any of you are stupid enought to belive in a devine presence. Please refrain from breeding. Thank You.
32 Michael // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:48 pm

lol, skeptic just got pwned

oh yeah, Evolution is NOT fact it is only a theory (bear with me) which has had well over a hundred years of evidence to support it BUT it is still a theory, it just happens to work perfectly with the evidence that is presenting itself to the Worlds’ scientists. Munan, seriously, there is no God, we are just more highly evloved animals, but we are still animals. With the exception of our ability to change our environment to suit us there is no animal on Earth which does not have at least one of our supossed ‘higher’ abilities.

For Example, many species are tool users, several species have language and communicate ideas and feelings, many species construct shelters to protect themselves from adverse weather, many species construct tools in order o constuct other tools, apes have recently been proved to use liquids as tools - a highly advanced case of problem solving. There are others but my fingers are getting tired.
ee
In conclusion NOTHING gave us life, we simply evolved to the point where we could conceptualize about our existence. There are many archaeological sites which show (roughly) the time when bodies were left where they droped and then when they weren’t, bones smudged with ochre for example, suggesting that at least some ritual was involved in waiting until the body had decayed so that the bones (essence) of the person could be ’sanctified’….

Go read about it….

Peace
33 Argggg // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Scientists are not debating evolution any more than they are debating whether or not the Earth is revolving around the Sun. In fact there is much, much more evidence to support evolution that there was to support that the Earth revolved around the Sun when Galileo was persecuted for that belief in the 1600s. Now just like then, the science is questioned only because it contradicts religious beliefs, and the arguments against are no more scientific. And NO, Intelligent Design is not science.

For any of you that would like more information on evolution, a great read written for people with nonscientific backgrounds is: Lynn Margulis “Microcosmos four billion years of microbial evolution”. I challenge anyone who questions the existence of evolution to get this book. The fossil record is just too complete and convincing for any open minded person to ignore.
34 Shandooga // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Why don’t they splash some water on some batteries and see what evolves?
35 RelativeScience // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:50 pm

This display is absolutely absurd. It’s art. It’s someone expressing their opinion. Great!

Evolution exists, though the only thing that is evolving is science itself. If you want to be skeptical and not believe in “Intelligent Design,” or God, that’s your problem but don’t point to the “Missing Link” and modern science to prove anything.

In twenty years, science will change, as it always has, and the Bible will remain the same, as it always has, and this argument will continue. The “Missing Link” will be missing forever and the “invisible” God will continue to patiently wait for you to stop asking him to fit into your little box and stop expecting him to fill your stupid cage.
36 Crab // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Think: “If evolution has all of these facts backing it up and it is so obvious to you all then why is it still debated not only among non-scientist but also among scientist?”

The scientists that oppose the theory of evolution (we’ll discredit the non-scientists from scientific discussions here for the same reason I wouldn’t be too concerned about whether my neighbour believed that the nordic and romantic languages share a common root) tend to base their arguments on invalidated science or a new modification to the theory which is usually dispatched with similar speed, and outright deny all evidence to the contrary.

No, we cannot _prove_ macroevolution in a mathematical sense, or deductively, no more than we can prove that oxygen in isolation under atmospheric pressure at 30 degrees Celsius will always form diatomic molecules, because we haven’t observed all possible instances, but we’ve never seen it otherwise, and praying for it to be otherwise hasn’t stopped it yet either. Much as I hate to invoke Dawkins, consider his teapot. No, I can’t guarantee that there isn’t a bone china teapot orbiting the sun, because I haven’t looked everywhere in the solar system, but as I have no compelling reason to believe there is one, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate there is. (I appreciate this was originally an anti-theological argument, but it is nevertheless appropriate).

Here we come to the first principle of the scientific method that creationism fails to adhere to: the burden of proof.

Let me make another (admittedly long-winded) analogy. You are a biology teacher. You show your class an experiment where you mix ethene and bromine in equal proportions, and observe that you invariably end up discolouring the bromine water. All the verified records of such a reaction have shown this. One of your students comes to you and says that when she did the experiment, the bromine did not discolour. You look over her notes and find that she accidentally moved a decimal point to the left, so she only put in a tenth of the required ethene. You point this out, and show her the experiment again. She disagrees, saying that it doesn’t always happen if you wish it to be so - who needs to prove that their experiment is correct?

Obviously, your student does. Her theory is inferior, as it is firstly entirely divorced from all other findings and more fundamental theories, and secondly does not best fit the observations: she wishes for it again with the correct amount of ethene, and it discolours, whereas the original theory (it will always discolour) fits all the observations (it always has). The burden of proof is on her because she has the inferior theory.

In addition, creation “science” as it is dubbed, invokes supernatural phenomena to avoid its problems. Say to a creationist: “How did the wolf come into being”, and the creationist replies ” put it there.” Their theory is therefore not falsifiable - you cannot approach this supernatural force and perform experiments. Ask a biologist, and the biologist replies “As the wolf’s ancestors’ environment changed, random mutations proved more or less favourable. The organisms with favourable changes lived longer and reproduced more prolifically, causing the favourable genes in that environment to become more common. This process repeated itself many times over millions of years until the wolf, with RNA strands, primitive amoeba, reptiles and rodent-like mammals in its lineage depending on what was favourable at the time, was favourable.” No supernatural force is required.

I feel, having mentioned falsifiability, I must go into an aside. Claims that macroevolution is non-falsifiable are nonsense. If we were to encounter a fossil or better yet living organism with no relation to other organisms, inexplicable by natural selection, we would have to abandon the theory of revolution. Merely because the theory is robust, does not make it unfalsifiable.

Finally, to pre-empt the occasional citations of “debate within the scientific community” not including creationists, this tends to be decontextualised - certainly, the fine points of the theory are debated and modified as new evidence comes to light, suggesting that perhaps sexual selection was more important in the speciation of humans and other great apes (not chimpanzees, by the way) than we believed, or that perhaps a new genetic sequence came to light suggesting that the sea worm was taxonomically further from the common earthworm than we believed. The main component of the theory, speciation through evolutionary pressures, these being natural selection, sexual selection and artificial selection, remains unaltered and undebated amongst scientists (this being opposed to “evangelists”).

As a footnote, if anyone cares to accuse me of using long words to confuse my point, I would firstly like to suggest if they cannot handle six syllable words I’m leery of their ability to judge the origins of species, and secondly, they may contact me at thecrabishere@googlemail.com for a more simplified and detailed explanation.
37 Shandooga // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Evolution is the answer to this question:

“What’s the best way to dispose of devil-worshipers?”

Yes, evolution is a pagan religion, like catholicism (no caps for devil-worshippers).
38 Fact vs Theory // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:54 pm

The theory of evolution is not scientific fact or law. While it is a theory, and one that that is supported by quite a bit of evidence, there are still gaps and flaws with the theory. We have the Newton’s Laws of Physics (those are true no matter what), but we don’t have the Law of Evolution. We have the theory. While it is a generally accepted opinion of the scientific community which is backed by evidence, I can’t stress enough that it isn’t fact.

So until it is the Law of Evolution, do not jump down skeptic’s throat. Take a look at everyone who thought Galileo was crazy when he thought the Earth was not the center of the Universe. For years people knew the that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. (I know this might not be the best analogy seeing as most of those people were Christian) Just remember one thing, theories are not set in stone.
39 Fact vs Theory // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:55 pm

I used the word fact a couple times in the last post. I meant to say “scientific law”. Sorry for using the wrong terminology.
40 Think Harder // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:57 pm

To ‘think’

Scientists debate things because we want to understand the details. You know - find things out and stuff. It’s fun, we enjoy it. It expands our worldview and lets us see the world in all its glorious details. We have a theory of evolution, lets investigate it more, find its every nuance, be able to marvel at the beauty and complexity of it. It broadens us.

Christian response? God did it.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm

Less credibility? Don’t give a flying fuck what you thinkto be honest if thats the best you can do. Sod off.
41 Alex // Jul 6, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Lets just all agree that none of us really know anything for sure. I personally believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything with his noodly appendages. Although I am quite partial to the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory too.
42 Alex Ludd // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Why can’t these “scientific” nuts (Will) capitalize, punctuate, or spell?
43 Jon // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Hey, Will. Most Christians don’t burn books, and we don’t tell women what they can do with their bodies. BUT, we do try to tell them what they CAN’T do to their babies bodiy, namely murder it.

Munan, when evolution becomes scientific FACT, it will cease to be a theory and will become a law. Like the law of gravity. But I agree with everything else you said. HEAR, HEAR!
44 Mark // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:03 pm

People evolved from apes. Some have advanced more in evolution, some are nearer to roots. Creationists are the proof for this.
45 Outpatient // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:03 pm

“Any human with a soul knows there is more to life than what we see.”

I guess I don’t have a soul. Actually I’m fairly positive I don’t have one. And neither do you Munan. Unfortunately your brain is simply not educated well enough to understand that you don’t.
46 Believer // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Putting Skeptic in the cage and let evolution have its way? Good idea. If he’s wrong, then there’s a slight chance this will result in a living specimen of the missing link.

But then again, if he’s right, there’s much more change that The Creator will interfere and show us another ape…
47 Florian // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Hello,

I like the last to comments a lot.

The tone in the creationism/evolution debate is very harsh and impolite on this site.

Then again, it’s a very fundamental debate. An wether one or the other is”true” makes a lot of diffenence.

I do believe that the Bible/Jesus are authentic. For me it doesn’t makea lot of difference to what degree the evolution of live takes place.Of course there exists a naturalgenetic selection and so some formof evolution.

Yes, it’s saidin the bible, that God created the world in 7 days, and it is said also, that for God one day is like 1000 years (perhaps meaning also, that for God 1 year is like 1.000.000 years? Or that time is not a restriction for him in any way?)

The basic question underneath the debate is a very old one:

Does a God exist, as some claim to know or believe? Or is there not a hyper-person like God? And if either, can that be proven?

God may have created by evolution in my opinion. Still I believe that the holy scriptures are true. And there are, by the way, scientific hints, that the biblical scripures may very well be at least hardly falsified over time (lots/loads of fragments and copies found at many different points of time and barely varying from each other. Of course I am aware that still some might say thay were “made up” in the first place, which I don’t believe =)

Philosophers and others have argued if it is at all possible, logically, to prove an existance of God. Others have questioned the boundaries of logic itself. Very, very interesting subjects.

Even if you are an atheist, these questions are very interesting. And the human nature to question and existance itself are mysteries (If you believe, or not believe in God/Jesus).

From my very basic understanding of logic:

There might be the God of the Bible
There might be other Energies or many Gods
There might be no God at all

The important thing is the implications that the differnet options have, if one of them turns out to be the pure truth.

Of course the question what truth is, is another interesting one.

One remark about the cage and the sign: If God/Jesus / his existance is the truth, then the thing would have to be considered quite rude/cynical/mocking.

I wonder if he considers answering the “welcomig/invitaion”. Then again, maybe it is not designed as a mere insult but as an honest probe, I don’t know.

Either way, I wouldn’t be too much surprised If something is in the cage one day.
48 Outpatient // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Jon, you are an idiot. There is no “law of gravity”. It is a theory as well. And will remain so forever. As will evolution. Please, read a book (besides the Bible.)
49 But what do I know? // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:19 pm

To everyone.

I’m going to have to agree with Munan. Whatever you believe in, someone or something out there created us. I’m hoping that fact isn’t being debated.

I personally believe that God created us, and whatever evolution or adaptation we went through was part of the plan, but whatever your beliefs are, that’s fine. I’m not trying to start an argument about beliefs.

I do however think that both the person who put that sign and cage up and the person with the idea to respond with an equally terrible statement (skeptic), were both unnecessary and ignorant. If you think about it, why would God “magically” put an animal in that cage just to please you? If I had that kind of power and someone asked me to do something as insignificant as put an animal in a cage, I wouldn’t waste my time with someone like that, and I don’t believe God would either. They would just find some other excuse for how it happened, so what’s the point? Whoever put the sign up is the ignorant one. But what do I know?
50 Think Harder // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:29 pm

There is in fact a law of gravity. Newtons law of gravity - Each object in the universe attracts each other body. However, scientific law is not a status that is achieved once a theory is proved. There is a law of gravity defining the what gravity is caused by and a theory of gravity that is an understanding, as yet incomplete, of the mechanics of how gravity works. This in no way undermines the theory that Jon is an idiot
51 anonymous // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:33 pm

You people are extremely rude to one another How about you go outside and learn how to interact with humans.
And the theory of MACRO-Evolution is still being debated be quite a number of scientists because there is little to no evidence backing up the single-celled organisms can evolve to multi-celled organisms.
52 Josef // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:43 pm

I always have to chuckle when I hear these fundies try and disprove evolution with the line “where is the missing link”. That’s like looking at an almost completed jigsaw puzzle that depicts an entire house except that the piece showing the front door is not in place and insisting that the picture could be of anything but a house.
53 oh lawdy lawd // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Hahahahaha!!! this is hilarious! All these crazy religious people are getting offended. Awww boo hooo cry babies
54 Angel // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Newton’s laws of classical physics were later corrected by Einstein, Bohr, et al. This is the way of science. It is a self-correcting method based on observation.

The written or spoken version of the scientific method is called theory. In this sense, the word does not mean theoretical or hypothetical. It rather refers to a useful articulation of facts which are known to be true.

Science is from the Latin word for knowledge. Facts are agreed to be true when several different academic groups have produced consistent results in the lab, or have observed consistent data in the field.

Religion is outside of the realm of science. It deals with that which transcends normal experience, and makes claims which are not falsifiable. It is purely a matter of faith which, by definition, requires no proof.

One CHOOSES to be religious, but humantiy uses science to reveal the truth about the world around us. The entire truth may be unknowable. Some choose to fill the gap with faith; I prefer a more rational approach.
55 Ape-Man-Bible-Thumper-Darwinist // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Rant, rant, rant! Rave, rave, rave!! Rant, Rave, Rant, Rave!!! I hate God, I love God. You’re right, You’re wrong! NO, I’m right! NO, I’m right!

But I sure do love the art!

BTW: I support the “Jon’s an idiot” movement.
56 IamZOD // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Grammer aside in my statement but, “The absience of evidence is not the evidence of absience” - Sam Jackson (the actor) :D. See the problem with this, is the person who made this sing says “The BIBLE says God mad everything on the Earth”. Well shit there’s the problem, I believe in Yahway/Allah/God, but I only go tot he Bible for advice. I know alot of Atheist or Agnostics who always say the BIBLE this and the BIBLE that. It’s a book, not an encylopedia. Until someone gives me undisputable evidence, I’m gonna believe in God. Explain to me why people run into burning buildings to save someone else. Or why a tiger would be seraget mother too a wild calf. You can’t offer a complete scientific explination of things like that. But it’s what ever, I’m sure someone is gonna rip all over me, but remember God loves you
57 Angel // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:54 pm

There is no missing link!

The physical evidence supporting the fact that evolution is the most fundamental aspect of biology is overwhelming.
58 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:54 pm

I believe religion, blind faith and stubborn ignorance to be the root of all evil in this world. Evolution is just a theory, a flawed one, but the best we’ve come up with so far. Education and the quest for knowledge and truth are so important. Blind faith in theories (religious or scientific) are what prevent mankind from developing and the excuse people use in order to control or exploit others. I draw conclusions (as do we all). I explore my own theories and I’m content to hold them without forcing them down other people’s throats. Above all, I try to keep an open mind. Live, love, learn and don’t try to educate ignorance or blind faith; it’s deaf as well as blind. Shame it isn’t mute!
59 Angel // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:06 pm

IamZOD,….Spell check much?
60 Angel // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:08 pm

“Blind faith in scientific theories” is a phrase that is both oxymoronic and moronic.
61 Random Dude // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:09 pm

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
AHAHHAHHAHAAHAHHAHA
HAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHH
AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
HHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHH
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Thats a funny pic
62 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:26 pm

P.S.
I also believe that 98% of mankind are more easily ‘herded’ than the average flock of sheep and that television is the opiate of the masses (who said that first?). Religion has been used for years to control people and teach them their place in life. The 1851 census (England) revealed that less than half the population went to church any more. The government were concerned about the rioting happening on the streets at the time and feared a revolution. How to control them??? A three way plan of action was put into place by parliament:
1 Enforced state education where people were taught “what they need to know and no more” (they needed to keep people occupied and off the streets and they needed labour in the mills and mines).
2 The first police force, their job was to gaurd the gates of the large mansions in London belonging to the ruling classes.
3 If people won’t go to church, they’ll take the church to the people. The Salvation Army was formed.
Is this relevant to the creation/science debate here? Yes I believe so. It’s time we all stopped hanging on to age old theories which imprison our minds and prevent us from thinking, developing and acting for ourselves leaving us at the mercy of those who would exploit us. I wonder what mankind would be capable of without such shackles. I take science over ordered religion any day, but I’m not a slave to any particular theory and, as I said in my earlier post, I try to keep an open, questioning mind.
63 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:30 pm

I was talking about blind faith in religion. Science at least tries to base it’s theories on fact. I think most people would have figured out what I meant without my having to explain….but this post is for the benefit of Angel…sigh!
64 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:31 pm

As I said, shame it isn’t mute!
65 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Presupposing another stupid comment, Angle dear, I meant metaphorically mute. I know that you are typing. Sigh….
66 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Oops, typo, sorry Angel (not Angle)
67 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:42 pm

My first two Submissions were not a personal attack on any person. I am not so insecure in myself that I need to try and make others feel inferior in order to make myself feel superior. I hope the Angels I don’t believe in are listening Sigh….
Have you expressed an original thought on here Angel or are your comments solely attacks on people who can string more than two sentences together? I can’t be bothered to look.
68 But what do I know? // Jul 6, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Is anyone else tired of seeing post after post being made by A Seeker of Truth? ….Just wondering….
69 GOD // Jul 6, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I Like that.

The man came from Apes, thas why i create Fossils! ;D
70 Initial circumstances // Jul 6, 2007 at 5:33 pm

First of all, this site made me laugh, a lot. Secondly, I agree that there is no way to prove that we all were created as we are right now by God. Thirdly, I have yet to be presented with any proof that we are all a result of universal randomness. I am NOT saying that I don’t agree with evolution. Evolution is a well documented theory, with much scientific evidence to back it up, and I support that theory. I do think that we, and all creatures, have evolved and are continuing to do so. My question is: what did we evolve from? Did we evolve from a random set of unique atoms in the universe that can never be repeated and/or tested (in other words, outside the realm of scientific understanding) or did we originally come from a creation of these living things by a diety of some sort (again, outside the realm of scientific understanding). I have yet to be told what the original circumstances were from which we evolved, and that is a question that I do not believe will ever be fully answered. So, yeah, a little argument to both sides.
71 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Ok I looked!
Scientific methods are not called theories Angel they are called methods. Scientific theories are termed hypothesis until deemed to have been proven and then become theories. Even ‘proven’ theories have later been deemed to be wrong as methods of research and science develops; therefore I eschew blind faith in those too.
I quote:
“One CHOOSES to be religious, but humantiy uses science to reveal the truth about the world around us. The entire truth may be unknowable. Some choose to fill the gap with faith; I prefer a more rational approach.”
Given that the above quote is from a person who chooses the name ‘Angel’ isn’t that a kind of oxymoron? Isn’t it also hypocritical to call oneself Angel when one harbours so much petty spitefulness in one’s little heart?
Before you have a go at my spelling, I’m English.
I suggest YOU use a spell check and also look up the meanings for the word humanity (spelled incorrectly in YOUR post) before attacking IamZOD or anyone else for that matter.
72 f*ck your god // Jul 6, 2007 at 5:52 pm

anyways to the creationist: shut the f*ck up there is no prove whatsoever that your god exists so just shut up
73 LuciferComplex // Jul 6, 2007 at 5:56 pm

A Seeker of Truth. de omnibus dubitandum. You put up the good fight, but in the face of dogma you fly like a moth towards a semi-truck. And, no, I have no idea who first said that. One site says some guy named Gerry Goldstein, who I could find nothing on, and of course Karl Marx was to have supposedly coined “Religion is the opiate for the masses”.

As for everybody else; all I got for you is Hail Eris! May your dogmas match your shirt.
74 But what do I know? // Jul 6, 2007 at 5:57 pm

A Seeker of Truth,

You keep harassing others, namely Angel, and somehow back it up by saying, and I quote “I am not so insecure in myself that I need to try and make others feel inferior in order to make myself feel superior”, but you keep harassing Angel because of his name and his grammar! You have made your point and nobody has responded to anything you have said in the past few posts, so give it a rest.
75 no to ignorance // Jul 6, 2007 at 6:06 pm

science is the process of finding fact… creationism is just another word for ” I give up!! Im tired of searching for facts. God created it all and its done… haha.. now to other things….” well thats how i see it.
76 Agnostic is the truth for everyone // Jul 6, 2007 at 6:27 pm

To the people like skeptic-
I didn’t realize until recently that I was agnostic. Check wikipedia for the definition before you start blasting me. To me it means, I just don’t know. I know that I live in the US, I know I am married, I know I pay for gas and don’t want to. I don’t know if there is a god and neither do any of you. Most religions are based on faith- faith you will go to heaven, get virgins after killing others that don’t believe as you, etc. I was raised Christian and would like to believe I am more than just random molecules that created a sentient being.

To those trying to be scientific-
Be careful about stating items are facts… many facts have been dis-proven after further scientific research.

If you can’t view this image and find the humor, I would consider you a religious zealot. I also recently saw a site that explained it this way:
A Jewish zombie that is also his own father, died for us because we are all inherently evil due to a demon in the form of a snake who convinced a rib-woman to eat a knowledge empowering fruit. Yeah, I’d believe that.

I don’t care who you are- that’s funny, and so is the picture above.

I can prove gravity…you can’t prove to me that god(s) exists, so until it can be proven to me; I’m agnostic. In my opinion everyone is agnostic- the can’t prove one way or the other if god exists.

P.S. please don’t start a debate trying to prove god exists, because it is normally circular logic
77 Wheet // Jul 6, 2007 at 6:54 pm

give it 40 years or so. by then we’ll have realized our mistakes and the world will undergo its own evolution. 2047
78 sonoran // Jul 6, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Evolution is not a “theory” waiting to become a “law”. The theory of evolution will never become a law, because scientific theories do not become laws.

“Theory” in science means an explanation of how something happens. “Laws’ are simple descriptions of behavior, like the law of gravitation which makes no mention of how gravitation works, it just quantifies what it does. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does however have elements that explain some of the how of gravitation, among other things, and thus is, and always will be, a theory.

Most of what we consider Evolution is already considered scientific fact i.e. all animals on earth have evolved from earlier animals, the earth is billions of years old etc. The only part that is a “theory” is natural selection, which is Darwin’s proposed mechanism for Evolution… the “how”.

Theory doesn’t mean the same thing in science that it does in colloquial terms. Scientific theories aren’t ideas that need further proof to become factual, they are simply explanations of how things happen.
79 karl // Jul 6, 2007 at 7:48 pm

you are all saying that evolution is a theory and saying that means its a thought no more. ask any scientist or any science teacher and the word theory is paramount to fact. gravity is a theory. plate tectonics. etc. theory in the scientific world means a proven idea. well, perhaps not proven. NOTHING is proven 100%. but rather unfalsifiable, which, for the idiots out there, means it cant be proven wrong. but more than that, it has to have whole boat load of evidence for it as well.

beyond that, show me a proof that god exists. one little tit-bit of evidence. cant can you. how many prayers answered? none? oh, im sorry, but im not suprised. read the bible, and read it thoroughly. it basically falsifies itself with its repeated contradictions. and answer me this. how could a god that is so “good and great” and “loving and compassionate” allow all the evil of the world? remember, he made us all, right? he knows all, which means he knew what would happen. so basically, he made people so they would be shit asses and kill innocents and get diseases. he already had it all planned out, right? go ahead, say hes punishing people. HE MADE THEM DO WHATEVER THEY DESERVE PUNISHMENT FOR!!! if he exists, he is making me write this, making me be an atheist. does that sound right? all knowing my ass. ‘existing’ my ass actually.
80 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:18 pm

What Do I Know
I was responding TO Angel’s harassment of myself and others.
What makes you think you can tell me what to do or not to do? I’ll write whatever I please whenever I please thank you very much. You ought to mind your own business and practice the teachings of the God you not only claim to believe in but who’s mind you purport to be able to read (as revealed in your 3:19pm post)
Quote:
“I wouldn’t waste my time with someone like that, and I don’t believe God would either.”
And YOU responded to my posts But then the bible bashing always do have a problem with those who aren’t on their bandwagon. It’s ok for you to try to incite others to gang up against me but you try to make me be silent because I responded to an attack??? How very ‘Christian’ of you! You’re even worse than Angel (bully’s stick together). If you can’t take it don’t dish it out.
For the What Do I Know and Angels of the world, I repeat, shame ignorance isn’t dumb as well as blind and deaf.
81 Bonder // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:26 pm

There seems to be a general lack of understanding of what it means for something to be a scientific theory. Wikipedia defines a scientific theory as: “A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.” What this means that that in order to form a theory, a scientist looks at all the available data and observations pertaining to the topic and forms a coherent explanation that accounts for all the observed data. As such, it also predicts what we should see in future observations.

A scientific theory will never turn into a scientific law, as a scientific law is like a mathematical postulate: they don’t have complex external proofs, but are accepted as truth because they have always been observed to be true. For example: a gravitational law would be that massive bodies attract; whereas, a gravitational theory explains how that attraction behaves, so Newton’s equation F = GmM/r^2 is part of his theory of gravity which has since been improved by Einstein (that’s right, theories are always subject to revision…this is a good thing).

In much the same way, we have observed evolution in action: bacteria evolves anti-biotic resistance and some bacteria has evolved the ability to digest nylon, for example. That would be evolutionary fact. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for how these changes develop: how a mutation in the genome can create a change in organisms that is then naturally selected for and propagates through the species via reproduction.

Shandooga: I think you may be confusing the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis, a common mistake. Evolution makes no statement on how life originally formed; rather, it explains what happens after life has already formed. The theory that life developed from amino acids and nucleic acids and self replicating molecules developed on the early earth and then through their affinities for each other formed into the first single celled organisms and thus life is known as abiogenesis.
82 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:30 pm

I’ve got nothing of interest to say in this post, simply exercising my right to leave one
83 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:34 pm

In spite of the brainwashed closed-minded rabble’s attempt to deny that right.
84 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:35 pm

You could always pray for deliverance. Ask your God to make me stop posting
85 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Lah la la lah lah tum te tum te tum
86 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Guess he wasn’t listening. Or is it that he died and made YOU master of the universe?
87 WDIK's God // Jul 6, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Seeker, you’re just being a douchebag now. Shut the fuck up.
88 Another Christian // Jul 6, 2007 at 10:12 pm

I haven’t spent a great deal of time studying evolution. I have an idea about how it works but not thorough enough to make a solid defense. so I did a quick google search and found this site.

http://www.epm.org/articles/evolution.html

Some of those points don’t seem worthwhile but a few of them seem pretty solid to me.

I was pretty sure there was argument amongst scientists about evolution, at least the idea that we evolved from single celled organisms. You’ll notice toward the bottom of the link a list of books at least some of which appear to be from people with degrees in fields of science. A google search on Dr. Michael Behe revealed he has a PhD in biochemistry. So there’s your proof that some scientists are against evolution for the couple of peeps who said there was none.

Also from what i do understand there are a couple of things that have lead me to not believe in evolution

Why is it humans are the only species to evolve with the intelligence we have? Millions of others species evolved and we are the only ones who can think on the levels we do?

Why is it humans evolved very little in the way of natural defenses? Most other species have them do they not? The reason a trait evolves is because the random mutation caused an increase in the amount a species reproduces. It never happened for us that we evolved a way to effectively kill our enemies? we have no claws, weak teeth, we are physically inferior to most animals our size. Am i wrong here? Instead we we’re the only species who evolved to learn how to use weapons?

Bash on
89 GOD // Jul 6, 2007 at 10:22 pm

I didn`t died.
90 A Seeker Of Truth // Jul 6, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Lol, glad to hear it GOD otherwise we’d have little Hitler’s thinking they were in charge.
Initial circumstances…
Loved your post. You made some interesting points. Randomness, Chaos theory, the Big Bang theory and Creation theory all presuppose the existence of something already in place (God, planets, stars, primordial soup etc etc). The problem is, where did THEY come from?
A baby in a womb can detect, gets glimpses of, the world it is going to be born into. If we could climb in there and tell it that it is glimpsing the world outside the womb and try to explain that world to it, the baby wouldn’t have the capacity to understand what we were saying. I feel that, as a species, we are as close to understanding our universal existence, origin, and destination as that babe in the womb is to comprehending the world it is about to be born in to. You’re right! We may never understand. It may well be an eternal question with infinite possible answers; which is why it’s good to keep an open mind.
91 Scrotchety // Jul 6, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Every coin has two faces, but on the edge of that coin is a third side that intertwines the two, keeps both faces contained to one reality, even if they are seemingly complete opposites.

Science has an open mind but closed heart. Religion has an open heart but closed mind. I offer a third choice, the meshing of two, that can make perfect sense to both parties: evolutionists & creationists alike.

If, dear reader, you can keep an open mind and heart, I hope you will consider and reflect this third possibility:

Let’s say somewhere in the last 10000 years ago there was life on a different planet. Maybe it was Mars, maybe it was the planet between Mars and Jupiter that obliterated and became the asteroid belt, maybe it’s some place further.
The conditions had been Earth-like, favorable to permit advanced life to develop. But, like a virus, the dominant species of The-Planet-That-Was overtaxed the resources, overpopulated, overconsumed, and life could not continue without imminent self-destruction. It was time to flee, to keep the flame of sentient life burning. They happen upon our blue planet Earth.
They observe protohominids within Africa. They remark upon the similarities between the two species. With a little genetic engineering, these first people become Aware. Perhaps the “missing link” will remain missing, because interference from outside sources caused these apemen to suddenly advance tens or hundreds of millions of years within a few generations.
And wouldn’t these newly Aware people consider the higher beings Gods? Is THE GOD merely the leader of alien propagators? Are his angels nothing but assistants, scientists, communications, security? Is the Devil and his underling demons nothing but dissenters? Is the battle of Heaven & Hell akin to: “No, God, this is wrong, we mustn’t meddle with this planet’s ecosystem. Let it take it’s own course… Prime directive, etc etc.” “Sorry, Satan, what we are doing is for the good, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. You’re a liar and a troublemaker, get off my ship and don’t mess with my new creations.”

Anyway, that’s -my- interpretation of events. Look at the pyramids. Man-made structures that have withstood the millenia, perhaps to convey a message within themselves to both science and religion.
–The Hebrew cubit is 25.025 inches, mentioned within the bible. Each side of the base of the Great Pyramid is 365.2422 cubits. That number is also the number of days it takes Earth to complete one full year, including the decimal we use every four years.
–The base of the pyramid is a square with right angles accurate to within one-twentieth of a degree. The sides are equilateral triangles and face exactly to the true north, south, east and west of the Earth.

These were borrowed from Patrick Heron’s “The Nephilim & The Pyramid of the Apocalypse.” http://www.nephilimapocalypse.com/shop/Scripts/6chapter1.asp

If you consider yourself scientific and open-minded, and consider religious folks close-minded, superstitious, or just flat-out stupid, then prove to us how open you are. Go over the facts listed in the link above and honestly ask yourself if ancient man was capable of those knowledges and feats without the help of some higher power.

—

Some believe if we used 100% of our minds we would be pure energy. Go back to the earliest stages of the Big Bang. Go back to when the universe was the size of a beach ball, a pea, a grain of sand, smaller yet. Imagine how much raw energy was pouring forth in those initial stages. Could such energy give rise to a perfect mind, self-aware? If 100% mind = pure energy, could 100% energy = pure mind? In the simplest mathematical forms, X = Y and Y = X.

There is a theory that as the universe expands, the universe gains more dark energy. The more dark energy, the faster time moves. The universe is expanding faster, and our perception of time is moving faster. A day in ancient Roman times would feel like 30 hours. Travel a few thousand years into the future, and the perception of a day will feel like 20 hours. I am not a physicist. This has been my take-away message from listening to professionals theorizing on an ever-expanding universe and the relevance of space, light and time.
If you kept going back in time, as the universe was smaller from less dark energy, wouldn’t the perception of a day become so bloated and out of proportion from our current standards as to not make sense? Whoever explained Genesis to Moses, you could only do it in such the simplest of terms. Moses would not understand the theoretics of physics or the correlations of time, energy, mass and light. I don’t think Moses quite got it right in Genesis, but I do not have trouble accepting the first day of lasting 6 billions years, or the third day lasting 3 billion years, or the 6th day lasting only a couple hundred million.

By the way, if anyone else subscribes to the theory the expanding universe is hastening time, let’s hear so.
92 Another Christian // Jul 6, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Another thought…

why would we evolve to reproduce as we do? So slowly… faster reproduction should take hold in evolution. Reproduce faster and your genes get spread around. When the mutation(s) happened that caused a reproduction to happen only once every year tops or as the mutations guided us in that direction those species should have never carried on. They don’t reproduce faster. Those should have been the random mutations that don’t cause evolution. But they did carry on… why?
93 Sandy Beach // Jul 7, 2007 at 1:01 am

Hahahahaha!!! Good for you Seeker Of Truth! I’m also bored to death with people who have nothing more interesting or intelligent to contribute than sarcastic remarks towards others. You made some valid points about that as well as about the debate itself. Keep posting, please I agree with Think, calling people names and putting them down doesn’t help present an argument but if people are gonna throw stones then they shouldn’t cry when they get a boulder thrown back at em. Hee hee hee, funny funny funny.
94 Science is Rock // Jul 7, 2007 at 3:50 am

Religion is Scissors.

http://www.cesame-nm.org/images/articles/trever_small.gif
95 Angel // Jul 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

seeking

“Blind faith in theories (religious or scientific)…”
This is the phrase to which I was referring. If I was mistaken about your intentions, I apologize.

‘Humanity’ was obviously a typo. There are more errors in the first word of the post to which I referred.

Another Christian
“Why is it humans evolved very little in the way of natural defenses?”

Natural selection is the engine of evolution. It is merely a statement of the observation that nothing succeeds like success. Intelligence combined with the dexterity of an opposable thumb, and many other factors seem to have been extremely successful adaptations. No other large vertebrate exists in such great numbers as we. Our intelligence allows us to invent and fabricate tools (as you mentioned). These tools can include defensive artifacts such as armor and shelter, or offensive devices such as weapons.

“Why is it humans are the only species to evolve with the intelligence we have?”
Why not? Any characteristic which confers an advantage is “selected’ merely by its contribution to reproductive success of the species. There is no evidence supporting that evolution proceeds in any particular direction. Genetic mutations occur by chance and by genetic drift. The mechanisms of mutations are poorly understood, but we know they always occur. Mutations which are associated with a trait that allows the species to survive long enough to reproduce in sufficient numbers to successfully compete for resources are retained. Mutations which are deleterious are weeded out by the failure of those endowed with such a mutation to survive.

Species which compete most vigorously with each other are those which occupy the same, or similar, ecological niches. The fossil record informs us that the hominid family tree is rather bushy, with many branches. All but one were evolutionary dead ends. It seems that we out-competed, or possibly killed off, the other hominids (e.g. homo- neanderthalensis) with which our ancestors coexisted.

Of course, we have no way of knowing the exact events which lead to our being the only sentient species. But if we engaged in warfare with another hominid species, the way we do with each other, it is possible that our superior intelligence allowed us to be more effective warriors than other hominids.

In any case, the point is moot in that being the only sentient species doesn’t, in itself confer any special evolutionary status to our species. There is no observed facet of biology which would preclude this possibility.

This is the point at which one may choose to find comfort in religion. Being sentient, we desire purpose. I choose a more secular perspective, and see our brief lives as ends in themselves, not needing any “higher” meaning or purpose, or creator.

We all hear the hoofbeats, but the secular among us think “horses”, while the more superstitious think “zebras”, or even “unicorns”.
96 Angel // Jul 7, 2007 at 7:49 am

BTW, the name Angel is meant to be ironic. It is a statement that all that is purported to be supernatural is instead quite natural, and part of being human.

Our rather long reproductive cycle, and the even lengthier period required for maturity are byproducts of many biological characteristics, not the least of which is our complex brain. The fact that there are 6 billion of us on the planet today attests to the success of intelligence as a positive adaptation, easily worth the resources required.
97 sonoran // Jul 7, 2007 at 9:07 am

Science is willing to consider anything that can be imagined. But it demands demonstrable evidence of those things; and that evidence, and how it was gathered, must be explained. Others must be able to demonstrate the same evidence; and as others come up with new tests the idea must continue to proved valid.

This is a ruthless and relentless process. Old ideas that held up for a long time are cast aside as new evidence emerges. I suppose science has “closed heart” in that it will have nothing to do with ideas that cannot produce good supporting evidence… no matter how good those ideas might make us feel; no matter how vested we might be in them; no matter how intertwined they might be with our morality or culture. Science cares nothing for sentiment, it demands proof, and this demand never ends.

Science is a methodology devised by humans. It is a way for humans to get around our own inability to accurately determine causality. The fact is we’re terrible at it, and the prescientific world was a mismash of goofball notions about spirits, ethers, demons and fairies.

Science makes us uncomforatable because it reveals that we’re really just minor entities in the universe. The universe does not resonate with our moral sense of right and wrong. Moral concepts are very important to US, but have no meaning beyond our own skulls because they are simply our evolved mechanism for living in social groups. We’re an infintesimally small group of inhabitants of what amounts to a mote of dust in a sunbeam. Our myths are mostly exercises in self-aggrandisement. There’s a reason they all originate in the iron age or earlier, they require an enviroment where rigor and critical thinking aren’t applied.
98 Angel // Jul 7, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Sonoran, I agree with your insightful posting.
Thanks

Seeker,
Whom did I harass, the pot or the kettle?
99 Cartoons Fans Lounge // Jul 7, 2007 at 6:44 pm

[...] X Men xbox We look forward to seeing what He comes up with. Funny. classic X Men 2 action figuresread more | digg story RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Cartoons Fans Lounge [...]
100 butcher99 // Jul 7, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Watched the ballgame tonight. Noticed quit a few players pointing up thanking god for that great hit, pitch etc. How come they don’t do that when they bean a guy or walk someone or muff an easy popup. It is gods plan isn’t it. Should he not receive thanks when you blow a play? He must have planned it. Or is he to busy trying to think of something outstanding to put in the cage and he missed the play?
101 borgdrone // Jul 7, 2007 at 10:31 pm

The cage is not empty. I don’t know how many million microbes are already in the cage.
102 athodyd // Jul 8, 2007 at 1:11 am

Anthropomorphism.

… And Man created god in His own image.
103 troll-lover // Jul 8, 2007 at 3:37 am

SKEPTIC! wonderful troll, you got these good ole boys all riled up!
104 Prime News Blog » Blog Archive » wonder woman drawings sketches Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) // Jul 8, 2007 at 6:38 am

[...] woman drawings sketches We look forward to seeing what He comes up with. Funny. hot wonder womanread more | digg [...]
105 Evilution // Jul 8, 2007 at 7:22 am

The funny thing is, as much as evolution is accepted as the gospel of today, it is still only a theory. I don’t believe the world was created in 6 days, but the theory of evolution will become primitive eventually. As mankind evolves, old scientific theories are discarded in favor of more accurate ones. Where is Ptolemy’s solar system now? Where is Bohr’s atomic model? Evolution is only a model, and people who accept it dogmatically will most likely refuse to accept further breakthroughs in science that may contradict it. Now, for those devout evolutionists, how exactly did life START? Obviously, the spark of life was transmitted into the first living organism SOMEHOW. I’m not christian nor would I translate the bible literally, but its obvious that somewhere along the line, an inanimate mass must have been spontaneously given the gift of life.
106 evolution needs a break // Jul 8, 2007 at 7:22 am

lets prove that jesus was more than a man
107 Pandorasbox // Jul 8, 2007 at 7:41 am

P.S. Regarding the numerous entries regarding contradictions in the bible, there are none. No, honestly, not one! Check, go on, have a look. You looking? No? Well i’ll explain then.

This is another example of what i spoke about earlier, being on the jury with a predisposition. What most of you know as “Christianity” is actually derived from paganism. That little fish on christians cars, Daigon the fish God, Easter an homage to Eostre a Scandinavian God, all these images of the vigin Mary with her baby reminiscent of the numerous mother with child images from pagan worship, there are so many more as well. Here’s the biggie though! The Tri-une God is another wolf in sheeps clothing, completely pagan!

As some of you may know, modern day Christianity has spawned from when Emperor Constantine decided he needed something to unify his failing Empire, so he made Christianity the national religion. Oh, a glorious day it was! Finally an evil empire had acknowledged the one true God and turned from their evil ways. Not true, it just covered practices they carried on and worse, some pagan practices and beliefs actually became what today are considered essential for the salvation of the soul.

Anyway, i’m sure you realise by now how easily i’m side tracked, but stay with me, this is good stuff, and i will conclude my point at the beginning.

Christianity as practised by Jesus and his disciples and the first century church was almost forgotten, replaced by a beast that would later kill and torture so many if they refused to yield, or even tried to read the bible (Catholicism, from which most modern day churches are derived).

Although today, personal examination of the bible is encouraged, it is examined with many of these false teachings in mind, a predisposition, and as a result many contradictions arise. This isn’t the peoples fault though, the bible was even translated with a predisposition leading to incorrect translation of numerous words.

If you go back to the original hebrew of the old testament and greek of the new testament, and let the evidence speak, there is no confusion and no contradiction. A lot less mystery as well. I was always told that God being three yet one yet three yet one was one of “Gods great mysteries”, but the bible never even suggests that this is the case upon close examination of the greek and hebrew. God is God. Jesus was a man, a great man, the greatest, but still a man. The holy spirit is Gods power, not a separate equal being.

The Jews refuse to acknowledge Christianity and Jesus partly because the suggestion that God would even think of becoming human is blasphemy. A human cannot even utter Gods name by Jewish law. So many Jews of the Old testament like David and Daniel will have believed exactly as the modern day Jews believe, that God is one. Sure, they knew Jesus would come, but they never, NEVER believed he would BE God, as that was blasphemy. If it is essential to believe in the Tri-une God for salvation of the soul, are these great men, set as examples for us to live by, currently burning in the fires of hell? I think not.

This is the case with so many things that atheists and agnostics can’t accept, and neither can i upon close inspection of the bible, they just aren’t true. Yes, i am a believer, but there is no teaching of immortal souls going to heaven or hell, no devil or demons, Jesus isn’t God and the Holy Spirit isn’t God.

If the bible is read as it is, and these pagan ideas aren’t incorporated, there is actually no contradiction whatsoever.

If anybody wants to carry on this or my previous discussion, e-mail me at thisisadebate@yahoo.co.uk
108 Tad Anglin // Jul 8, 2007 at 7:50 am

ATTENTION MACRO-EVOLUTIONISTS

As a christian, it is my sincere pleasure to introduce you, the Macro-Evolutionist, to something called “FAITH”. I know…..you think you don’t have any or maybe you do….but don’t think it’s relevant to this discussion…read on.

You see, the word of God says in the very first book….”In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth. I state this verse to emphasize “the beginning”….

I think we can all agree….there is a beginning for everyone…I mean….the very beginning. Even Macro-Evolutionists have one. But what is it? Have you ever stretched your mind long enough to think about it? Put down the TV or the computer and think about this…

Macro-Evolutionists believe, “In the beginning, there was dirt.”

In your deepest inner being I ask you, what makes more sense to put your faith in? Dirt? Or an intelligent, omniscient, loving creator?

“In the beginning”…..he thought of you.

What do you decide?
109 Carl Sagan // Jul 8, 2007 at 9:09 am

Hi everybody!
Its me! Carl Sagan! Im in heaven you know? Mmmm… nooooo…..???

Actually all so-called believers are a bunch of fuckin idiots. Grow Up. Damn!
110 Creationist Humor at The New Atheist // Jul 8, 2007 at 9:13 am

[...] they really are quite funny. Check out the Intelligent Design Zoo over at Science Humor. Bookmark [...]
111 Human Lover // Jul 8, 2007 at 9:34 am

oh, and not believing in evolution is like not believing in wiping ones arse. *I* do it.
112 Cartoons Plugin » Blog Archive » futurama - frys holophoner lay mp3 Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) // Jul 8, 2007 at 9:38 am

[...] frys holophoner lay mp3 We look forward to seeing what He comes up with. Funny. futurama 1st episoderead more | digg [...]
113 perhaps // Jul 8, 2007 at 10:01 am

scortchety. you wrote the only engaging block of text in this forum…thingy. it is a wonder how creativity is lost so quickly amongst heated and supposed clever response. i lend my hand to you for a low five. your mind is clear and true. keep thinking and try not to be affected the diminishing creative minds.

to believe in something is to have faith in that something. there is no oxymoron in such a statement as: faith in scienctific facts. to agree. to accept. to believe. to trust. just words. the individual mind makes the final decision. and that decision is always based on such words. i believe i am right. i have faith that i am right. circular arguments should not be discarded. questions never cease, and answers only provide enough room to ask another question. to have an open mind is to accept all the possibilities as plausible. thus so far within this forum there has yet been an open-minded post. scortchety came the closest. i agree with what eeyore said to piglet. “You have to CONSIDER all the possibilities before you decide on something.” and since i agree with eeyore… i trust his knowledge/wisdom. since i trust his wisdom i believe in eeyore. since i believe in eeyore, i have faith in him. there is nothing wrong with faith. we all have it. cheers.
114 Me // Jul 8, 2007 at 11:06 am

@skeptic,

There’s this little thing called the fossil record - Check it.
115 Dark Alchemist // Jul 8, 2007 at 11:57 am

Skeptic is partially right. No, evolution does not state that humans came from monkeys. But the theory of evolution does state there are such things as incomplete forms like he/she’s describing.

An incomplete form wouldn’t have to be a monkey-man combination, it could be anything like a giraffe-elephant combination or a cat-bunny. Like I said anything. None of these forms have been found so there could be skepticism if evolution is true. Just thought I’d clear that out.
116 Aefven // Jul 8, 2007 at 12:23 pm

On the 7th day God rested, he had finished.
He ain’t building any more, read the book people.
117 the empty Cage « Voices In My Head // Jul 8, 2007 at 2:02 pm

[...] Take a look [...]
118 tom // Jul 8, 2007 at 2:15 pm

didnt anyone actually look at the picture? ever hear of photoshop? god used it to “create” this image.
119 God // Jul 8, 2007 at 3:03 pm

I am currently hard at work on a new creature for you all. It’s something along the lines of the platypus, but I’m taking it in a different direction, something a little funky, maybe reusing some of the parts of my more successful lifeforms. I’m thinking about making it spotted. Please keep your eyes on that cage, it will be ready soon. Thanks for being patient.
120 Joe // Jul 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Why do we bother??

This is a issue that only those who just barely passed Biology in school can debate against. I use the word debate loosely. Every time you start a debate these people you are only promoting there point of view.

There will always be…. village idiots.

Don’t give them the platform to promote there views.
Don’t answer them, ignore them.
If people just stopped trying to explain what is a fact of life, to people who don’t want to listen this argument would be over along time ago.

The Creationist objective is to promote these “debates”, they are few and misinformed.

IGNORE THEM!!!

Wait for your time, like the when a school board tries to promote “creationism”.
121 Phil // Jul 8, 2007 at 5:45 pm

If any of you care what i think on the subject, go read a book called “black order” by James Rollins. He is a great author who, through the characters in the book, explain the link between evolution and faith.
122 APhillips // Jul 8, 2007 at 6:46 pm

The picture, and the challenge, reminds me of something in the book of Job.

Job has been complaining for about 30 chapters about his life and all that has happened to him, when God simply and powerfully asks him: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.”

Just a humbling reflection that we will never know exactly what happened when life began…however much we may debate and argue about it.
123 rebelfan91 // Jul 8, 2007 at 9:09 pm

no takers?
124 DillDoe.org // Jul 9, 2007 at 2:57 am

WIth the advances in Science/Medical, it will be possible to create a half man, half ape (all based on theory of evolution)
So we’ll see an ape man hybrid faster than anything HE could put in the cage.
too bad his goons (Looking at you monkey face Bush) prevents it
125 Tom // Jul 9, 2007 at 4:29 am

i lol’d
126 codemonkey // Jul 9, 2007 at 5:31 am

This is bull**** , one way to tell if someone is telling you a fairy tale is when they say - “millions of years ago”. No one was there , carbon dating is flawed ,there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that evolution is true.

It still amazes me that evolutionists wont believe anything unless it is proved to them, while their own methods of proving their theories is flawed. Wake up please , creationism is a leap of faith , i agree with that; but is makes a lot more sense than evolution.

Please stop fighting about crap like this and think clearly and objectively. You werent there “millions” of years ago(nothing existed back then anyways), so there is no reason to fight over something which you know absolutely nothing about. Get the flawed science right.Google Each theory that suggests the earth is billions and billions of years old , and there is an objective argument of why it isnt so. STOP BEING SO CLOSED MINDED.

Thanks:)
127 g-man // Jul 9, 2007 at 5:43 am

Photoshopped beyond all reason.
128 Wiggly // Jul 9, 2007 at 11:03 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2278733.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fossils

I am a Christian. I am also very interested in science. I believe the Biblical story of creation, but I leave open possibilities that many Christians and secularists dismiss.

For example, I don’t believe that the Biblical creation necessarily took place in six 24-hour days. Remember, people, the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon didn’t exist at the time. I’m thinking more in terms of “God-days”, which could be very long indeed. The Bible says that a single day for God is like 1,000 years to us. I don’t necessarily think that ratio is exact. The Bible uses the number 1,000 to mean a very large number, so it could be much more. (Interestingly, that exact ratio [1,000 Earth years = one God day] would make a 4.5 billion year old Earth about 33 God-years old, which is also the age at which Jesus was crucified.)

I think it is apparent (to creationists and secularists alike) that evolution does occur within a particular “kind” (i.e., genus) of animal or plant, so-called “microevolution”. I’m sceptical, however, that evolution from one kind of organism into another kind can be reconciled with Biblical creation.

The Bible says that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. I suppose if you stretched things quite a bit, you could suppose that the dust included a pile of monkey crap that had decayed and turned to dust, but still retained some viable DNA within it. I’m open-minded, just skeptical.

Since I’m Christian, I favor the Bible over human science, so I’ll stick with the Bible’s version. Nevertheless, as someone interested in science, that still doesn’t bother me too much because future versions of evolutionary theory will doubtless be much different from today’s versions, just like today’s versions are much different from Darwin’s.

And that’s one really big reason not to get too overworked by this false dichotmy of evolution versus creation. If anything in this world is evolving without question, it is science’s understanding of the universe in which we find ourselves. One day, don’t be surprised if science comes full-circle and realizes that the Bible was correct all along. (It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter. Proverbs 25:2)

When I was younger, I was totally secularistic. I thought, like many of you, that the Bible is purely fiction or, at best, dramatized history. But I kept an open mind.

As I matured, I learned more about the Bible and Christianity. And honestly, I could fairly easily dismiss pretty much all of it as unproven, except one big part: Jesus. There is no question that He lived. Any fair-minded secularist would have to admit as much. History is full of references to Him and His life, both Biblical and extra-Biblical. It is simply impossible that Jesus did not exist. He was born, lived 33 years, and was crucified on the cross by Roman soldiers at the urging of Jewish leaders. To say any less is simply wrong.

But that doesn’t make Jesus anyone too special. Many other people throughout history could have a very similar story. What makes Jesus’ story different is partially how He lived, but mostly what happened after His death. He came back to life on His own, after being well and truly dead for quite some time, something no other human has ever done. And His thousands of followers, who should have scattered after His death, for some reason, decided to preach His death and resurrection, even to the point where it cost them their very lives. Why would they do that?

I have tried to poke holes in this story. Let’s face it. Life would be much less complicated if we could just live and let live, or kill and let kill, or steal and let steal. I see lots of things I would like to steal. I know some people who I might have even wanted to kill. But I just can’t get past this Jesus.

How could He be simply another human? He was special. There’s no denying it. Although I am fully confident that many will respond that they do deny it, to date I have found all of their arguments either, plainly ignorant of the facts or simply unconvincing.

And Jesus very clearly believed in the Biblical story of creation. So my Lord tells me that creation is true, and I believe it. Sue me.
129 Wiggly // Jul 9, 2007 at 11:15 am

Just for fun:
http://wigglypeanut.dyndns.org/images/custom/IntelligentDesignZoo-DarwinCaged.jpg
130 Children of God // Jul 9, 2007 at 12:23 pm

All you blasphemers will burn in hell. The good lord created this wonderful earth and created all the life you see about you. There is no way that all this happened by accident. Instead of spewing your lies and hate here you should be in church praying for forgiveness. When the rapture comes the lord will check his list and check it again to see who has been naughty and nice. If you have not shown blind faith and obedience you will be spending a very long time in a very dark and very hot place getting bummed by, and giving blowies to the devil.

I hope to see you all in church on Sunday.
131 Spoonman // Jul 9, 2007 at 1:33 pm

“Why is it humans evolved very little in the way of natural defenses?”

Because we developed intelligence which allows us to overcome the kinds of things natural defenses protect against. We don’t need claws because we know how to use weapons. We don’t need megastrength because we can invent more powerful weapons. Think in terms of the mammoth who possessed great natural defenses (tough hide, large size, massive tusks, etc), but they were nothing when met with man’s intelligence. We wiped ‘em out without what you would consider anything meaningful. Just some sticks and a pack mentality. Conversely, we have a lot of failings (just look at any list of genetic diseases) that weren’t evolved out because our intelligence allowed us to circumvent the issues.

“Why is it humans are the only species to evolve with the intelligence we have?”

Who says we are? We see various species of primate who use tools regularly. Many, many species have problem solving abilities. Some go even farther…African Grey parrots, for example, have a large capacity for learning, and with their ability to learn how to communicate can interact with people. There is much debate around her, but Koko demonstrated a great capacity for communication. Penguins mate for life. There’s a broad spectrum of what humans are capable of and there’s ample species that can do the same things. We’re just the only ones fortunate to “get it all”.

At least, we’re the only ones still around. Neanderthal man is considered to be pretty close to our “equal” when it comes to his congnitive abilities. He had art and music, myths and voodoo, used tools, etc. We just managed to kill them before they killed us.
132 Oh the Possibilities // Jul 9, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I wish I had been encouraged as a child and teen to expand my mind and become as intelligent sounding as the posters here. Unfortunately being raised religious (mormon) left me leaving it up to god. Don’t freak out, I am not lumping all religious people into a stereotype; I am only saying this was my experience. I would ask questions, and the answer would always be, “It is not for us to question, let God worry about that stuff.”
So here I am at 34 trying to educate myself with the internets at my disposal. Information overload, cannot keep up, brain twitching with pleas of mercy. But I win and I actually can turn on the critical thinking switch and I am able to see the facts laid before me and come to the conclusion that I used to be an idiot (how embarrassing), the kind of idiot that once said, in a McDonalds, to the friends I was arguing with… “If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?” Thank science and rational thought I have seen the error of my ways and now side with evolution! I have attained a basic understanding of the history of religion. I believe it to be man-made and am better for it.
Scrotchety’s post about advanced species visiting early man is very intriguing to me… I have also wondered about the Mayan calendar and the pyramids being so advanced for the age.

But anyway, I just wanted to have my say, even if it does not contribute much to the debate. It feels good to be able to tell people that I have come to my senses even if they are strangers. I lean heavily toward being atheist with some agnostic tendencies. It has been over a year now since I started my journey on the tubes. There are people out there making religious claims that even I, with my limited knowledge, can see as ignorant. I am like a sponge sucking it all in, every tidbit of knowledge I can get my hands on, a lot of it I may not be able to comprehend very well, seeing as how I never had a thirst for educating myself before now, but I am trying. As I told a good friend a while back who questioned how I could ever deny that our church was true… unlike most in my ex-religion, I no longer hide behind the “anti-mormon” (or could also be antichristian, anti-baptist…insert your own) shield as if the only way to ascertain the truth was to ignore and hide from the opposing argument. So any quest to educate myself is looked at objectively and with an open mind. I have found that my presupposed notion (or what I was told to believe) of “anti-mormon” literature was wrong. Sure there are extremists that take an intolerant stand and say terrible things… but I have found very little of that, and a whole bunch of intelligent, well researched, logical thoughts, opinions, ideas, experiences, evidence and insight from a wide variety of sources, all of which I take into consideration as I strive to apply a wise use of healthy logic and essential critical thinking to my ever growing bank of knowledge. These criteria can apply to any religion and the brainwashing that occurs within it. If I can do it, you can do it. I was a fifth generation mormon, just another religious zealot who would not let a stitch of the opposing views enter into my mind. Open your mind to the possibility that your own religion just might have some history that you don’t know about. Educate yourself on its roots before you dismiss the opposing view.

I may be late to the discussion and have gotten a little off subject, but oh well…thanks for letting me rant.
133 BuzzFriendly // Jul 9, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Great Pic!

I find it quite amusing when creationist reject science but are so quick to embrace it when they want their heart medication, insulin shots, kidney dialysis or some artificial part.
134 Greg // Jul 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm

A few points if I may?

Scientific method as I undertsand it runs something like this:

1) Hypothesis - you look at a situation then gather some initial data. You then think of a explanation that could explain the phenomona. For example the mythic apple hits Newton’s head, he wonders why this object falls and hypothesises after much deliberation there is a force mutually acttracting the objects. SO Newton looks at lots of data on object’s motion from apples (it really didn’t happen) to looking at Kepler’s Laws of Planetary motion and astronomial observations.

1b) Formalisation - the hypothesis should be formalised according to Popper’s criteria of predictive, measurable and falsifiable statements. If you can turn it into maths, all the better. Newton was here the Incandescent Genius. He wrote down simple formulaes he hoped would predict all the motion he could observe, from apples to the moon. F = ma, F=(M1*M2*G)/r^2 - so simple!

2) Empirical testing - your formalised hypothesis makes predictions which are measurable. These measurements are facts. If the measurements fit the hypothesis go the step 3 if not back to step 1 (or give up). Newton’s hypothesis was used to make prediction which fit the experiemental data perfectly and continued to fit all new data being gathered. Well nearly perfectly you always have a margin of error (this margin of error hid a big problem in fact)

3) Theorisation - Once the data has been used to refine the hypothesis and this has been rigorously tested it magically becomes a Theory of the observed phenomona. Newton’s hypothesis fit the data he had and so became his theory.

So facts lead to hypothesis, which are in turn tested by facts and if all goes well woo hoo! THEORY! If not a hell of alot of wasted time…

What is a Law (like the law of gravity)? I was always taught a law is just a theory that has hung around for long enough to be considered part of the furniture. Newton’s “Law” of Gravity, for example, does not ‘work’ in some fairly mundane settings such as the Perehelion of Mercury problem. Newton’s “law” predicts a certain result and time after time the evidence came back in contradiction. This does not mean Newton was wrong per se. He just didn’t get it close enough.

Newton’s laws are good enough to put men on the moon. Easy, fairly trivial calculation. But they are ‘fuzzy’ in some situations. Einstien came along and de-fuzzed things alot but similarly The Theory of General Relativity does not work in Quantum situations. Is it wrong? Again I think this is the wrong terminology it isn’t wrong it is incomplete. (note: not Law of Relativity even though it stands up to far higher scrutiny than Newton’s “Laws” - we were a bit more wary by the 20th century!).

Netwon’s laws work where Netwon’s laws should be applied which sounds silly and it should. We should say “Apply Newton’s laws in situations where it is appropriate to ignore the effects of relaitivity or quantum effects”. Does it matter they are not “true”? Of course not! If it works for explaining what you want to explain, then fine! job done! Netwon only fails when you apply his work to situations he didn’t consider because they were not on his radar. High gravity and high acceleration situations were untestable so didn’t even figure. But to this day his laws are good enough for an awful lot of what we do. Evolution may not explain every detail perfectly yet but give the biologists a chance - their theories are holding up damned well compared to the state of physics before Planck and Einstien came along, it was a horrible mess!

Theory in scientific terms is very different to the lay usage. A theory will NEVER become a fact. It cannot by definition. A fact is a piece of measurable data (How fast was that, how long is that, how massive is that, what is the gene sequence of that?”) a theory is an attempt to explain phenomona. Facts are in no way “superior” to theories or any more “true”. Indeed in everyday experience facts are almost useless, theories are incredibly powerful. Consider gravity again. A fact in relation to gravity is that every time you have measured how fast something falls on Earth it seems to accelarate at -9.8 m/s^2. What use is that? If someone asks you “How fast will this cannon ball accelerate in free fall?” and all you have is facts then your answer must be “I don’t know I would have to measure it and get a fact”. With a theory you can answer “well every time I have measured this before it was the same so I hypothesise that this will accelerate at the same rate as my other experiments (inductive logic)”. Then you do it, get the fact and the fact fits. Bravo, you have a primitive theory of gravity. It is useful.

Or take breathing for example - ever tried stopping? I bet you accept the theory that if you stop breathing you will die without checking the specific “fact” of the matter! Or being hit by a car. There is no “fact” that it would injure you. you can only theorise that since when other people have been hit by a car they have sustained injuries, and you are broadly like those other people, if you were hit by a car you would sustain injuries. The facts are that other people sustain injuries not that YOU would sustain injuries. You use the theory that if a person is hit by a car they suffer injuries and abide by that theory. You do not have any specific knowledge of what would happen if you were hit just a generalised theory. If you do get hit and you suffer injuries then you have a stronger theory but still no fact of what would happen if you were hit in the future. Also notice an important point that facts don’t have to 100% fit. For one you have margins of error and freak occurances (I am sure there are examples of high speed collisions with little or no injury) but if it works the overwhelming majority of the time it becomes bloody useful. Richard Feynman spoke very well on this subject so I suggest you read or listen to him over my pathetic attempts. My point is talking of evolution as only a theory that will/will not one day become a “law” or a “fact” is well forgive me but silly. It is like arguing which fish will win Wimbledon next year.

Scrotchety, I respect your position but cannot agree I am afraid. I think we evolved here, the pyramids are tombs and we like the pyramids are no more special than that. But that makes us pretty damned special in my opinion. I am far more impressed with the idea of our ancestors building the pyramids (after a few failed efforts it must be noted) than ETs. A more technologically primitive culture striving, failing, trying again never giving up and eventually through sheer force of indomitable human will and incredible well… genius there is no other word, erecting monuments that impress their far future descendants OR a bunch of hyperadvanced ETs throwing together a few bricks and cocking it up at least twice? Sorry that may be abit harsh but you see mmy poit?

Also be wary of strange attributes of the pyramids - a famous one is that the configuration of the Giza plateau matches the formation of Orion’s belt. It doesn’t and procession doesn’t help, they NEVER fitted! Not saying you’re wrong, but be wary.

ON your notions of space-time, I am a bit confused but I think you refer to the idea of relativity where by an observer can have a different personal “time” than another independent “observer” due to differing accelerations. So if we accept that dark energy (and no we don’t know what it is yet! odd stuff) is “accelerating” time we could say that 1 day now = 30 days at some point in the past.

RIght here is the problem. Bear with me. Many people state that the principle of time dilation in relativity is that “moving clocks run slow”. This is wrong and it is wrong because it begs the question “moving relative to what?” there is no absolute position to measure “time” against, no standard. you can’t say “well person X’s time is running 23% slower than Standard Time” because there is no such thing! So time is relative to ALL observers, that is the point. So if we were to travel back 6000 years or whatever and yes time WAS running slower we wouldn’t notice! Someone looking from outside the system may see the time as runnning slower from their perspective but we would see no difference. A day is a day to you no matter what your acceleration.

Time is odd and it would take alot of posts and a fair bit of maths to explain! That sounds bad but maths is so unambiguous whereas words are so imprecise. Time is such a funny business you need maths to explain it really. I think getting a handle on other relativistic concepts like mass is better than time to start with, although I am unawre of your level of physics (you may well know more than me lol!). As for modern cosmology it is very odd stuff and the next 3-4 years will be fascinating once CERN get going with the new collider.

Nevertheless interesting points I would debate them further, please do not take my counter arguments as anything other than that

More generally:

1) You can’t prove god exists. You can’t prove god does not exist. God is a unfalsifiable, metaphysical concept. But you have to look at the probabilities I think (and I though this before I read Dawkins lol). It has been stated so many times I am loath to repeat it but look at Russell’s Teapot (not Dawkin’s by the way). I think it goes “I believe that there is a perfect china teapot in orbit around Saturn. You can’t test this idea but is it reasonable or likely?” Is God likely? Personally I don’t think so because he seems unecessary to my mind. As an aside Russell was also asked if he was wrong and there was a God what would be his response and he replied “not enough evidence Lord, not enough evidence” which I think is lovely

2) Even if (and it is a whacking great if) evolution was proved ‘wrong’ it is not proof that god exists.
Barring himself decending on a cloud and proclaiming it false that is…

3) Did something have to create us? Seems logical but it ends up as “turtles all the way”. What caused the first cause? If everything needs a cause and you extrapolate back to the Big Bang and say “well that had to have a cause and that cause was God” it begs the question what caused God? You can’t have it both ways - either everything must have a cause and you have infinitely regressing Gods (all becoming more and more powerful the further back we go as how can a less powerful god begat a more powerful one, that would be evolution wouldn’t it and we are back to square one sort of lol) or you abandon the need for God to have a cause which means the statement “everything must have a cause” is invalid and therefore the argument collapses.

4) Maybe we can’t figure everything out but we are nowhere near the limits of our knowledge yet and should be pushing harder not adopting the “some things are best left unanswered” in my opinion. We have a tendancy to think that the boundaries of our knowledge are absolute. In 300 years time physicists will be guffawing at 20th century comrades who thought that a GUT or some theory would explain EVERYTHING, whilst scratching their heads about problems of their own. Point is we have always thought throughout history that we were either on the brink of figuring it all out or that we had reached the limits of our knowkedge. I believe this is demonstratably wrong.

5) Science and religion can co-exist peacefully. Like man and the fish. I am not religious but for the sake of those who are I really wish it was possible for there to be no conflict. I just see massive problems with reconcilling the two.
Galilieo said that the church should teach us how to go to heaven and not how the heaven’s go. This is a great quote but the further science pushes the further god retreats until I wonder what will be left for god. With this in mind why risk taking moral instruction from people claiming to speak for somthing you can’t even verify the existence of? Surely better to make your own informed moral choices than leave it in the hands of just another person? And to be sure as science and reason have pushed religious observance has floundered. How many people really follow the law of the Bible for example? Do we stone newly wed brides that are discovered to not be virignal to death? DO we literally interpret the commandments and put to death all those who do not bow to Yaweh? No we (as Dawkins so very rightly points out) pick and choose according to a moral arbiter external to the religious canon. SO I see a big problem. As god disappears from daily life, religious moral codes become weak which will strain the relationship. Also scientific methods are in direct contradiction to faith. I cannot see how you can reconcile faith and reason. I cannot concieve of being reasonable about all things except one or two points of which you have faith. I don’t get it. SO I think there is a huge ideological difference, one is all questions the other all answers. Science will never accept an answer or it would stagnate and religion cannot accept questions, at least about its validity, without taking serious damage and reverting to the faith position which is unquestionable. I also share Dawkin’s opinion on imposing religion upon kids. It is a difficult issue but what right do we have to demand our children follow our religion? We don’t demand they follow us politically. I think education and religion are headed for a big showdown and we are seeing the opening salvos.

Long and short - FAR too many issues to be dealt with in a forum post and I have rambled my apologies But if anyone is interested have a look at some of the points raised.

Anyway interesting discussion and remember argue the point not propser of the point.

PS and yes nice pic!
135 Moebius // Jul 9, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Probably the most horrifying aspect about this discussion is that you people are arguing over a peice of bad photoshopping o.o

Not to mention, no one seems to be arguing back …
136 GMan in Athens // Jul 9, 2007 at 7:22 pm

One problem with oponents of the Theory of Evolution is that they take “theory” to mean “hypothesis”. Perhaps they should also be fighting the “hypothesis of gravity” (how about come up with a “Intelligent Fall” theory?), the “quantum hypothesis”, the “atomic structure hypothesis”.

Or, perhaps, we should all embrace Intelligent Design but admit that the Martians did it… Since when does Intelligent Design proves the existence of “god”?
137 mIchael the archangel // Jul 9, 2007 at 9:26 pm

I don’t think She really likes life
As she has killed 99.99% of everything living now

Maybe you should use the cage to protect something she is about to kill?

Besides She is hardly likely to do anything a male suggests
and
is probably lost in the car-park anyhow.
138 mIchael the archangel // Jul 9, 2007 at 9:27 pm

I don’t think She really likes life
As she has killed 99.99% of everything living so far now

Maybe you should use the cage to protect something she is about to kill?

Besides She is hardly likely to do anything a male suggests
and
is probably lost in the car-park anyhow.
139 Covert Curiosity // Jul 9, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Darwin was a rad mofo.
140 arnonerik // Jul 9, 2007 at 10:26 pm

According to the gospels, what you are doing is exactly what Herod tried to get Jesus to do. “Perform for me”! “Do a miracle for me just because I demand It”! Later, as Jesus hung on the cross the jeering crowd did the same thing. They said, “If you are the Son of God save yourself! Come down off of the cross and save yourself.” Just because God doesn’t do tricks for you when you demand them isn’t “proof” of neither his existence or non-existence.
You guys love to set up straw men and them knock them down while crowing about how intelligent and scientific you are.
Someone smarter than me said you rabid athiests all agree on two things; #1, That God does not exist, and #2, That you hate Him with a passion.
141 shrek // Jul 10, 2007 at 6:07 am

Personally, I find Religion a way of controlling society. I also believe that religion is a crutch for weak people.

Faith? that was a stoke of Genius. Why does God need FAITH to exist?

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” say Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t though of that” and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

HHGtTG
142 free thnker // Jul 10, 2007 at 8:32 am

@ relative science,,,,,, yes science will change in 20 years and that is what science has always done but i wish to point out to you that you are WRONG when you say the bible will be the same cause i do believe that you will find there has been MANY changes to the MANY DIFFERENT bible’s and all claim to be the one true word of “god” and carry very different interpretations of what “he” actually “said” and they all will continue to change because man will change them to suit what he wants to force his fellow man to believe depending on the circumstances he is in at the time so i think you need to do a little research on “the one true word of god” and then come to the conclusion that it is mostly rubbish..the only positive to come from it is the teaching that we need to be kind to out fellow man…if you have blind faith in it that it is absolute fact and therefore law then thats your problem don’t do what your religion has done for centuries and force your beliefs onto the rest of us intelligent and evolved creatures because you believe everything you read
143 Kane // Jul 10, 2007 at 8:58 am

I was agnostic until I studied Theology and the history of the Christian Church. Then I became an atheist. Forget about studying science to prove that Christianity is baloney, one only has to study Christianity itself to reach that conclusion.
Did you know the holy trinity was invented to stop Christian churches from schisming? It was an expedient way to maintain political power.
If you look into most of the Christian doctrine as we know it, this theme raises its head again and again. A lot of the current Bible was is the way it is because it was edited to further political concerns.
144 richard bown // Jul 10, 2007 at 9:27 am

Yeah, but at lest the scientists have actually done some looking around at the way the world works and testing their hypothesis, rather than just making a load of shit up which makes no sense, and then ONLY changing their minds when they have to. Sun being the center of the solar system for example. Creationists, please read some other book than your bible, the earth is much older that 10,000 years old, and please open your minds and be critical of what you are told is the ‘truth’ the same way that science is critical and does experiments to analyse the world around us.
145 God Called In Sick Today... // Jul 10, 2007 at 10:08 am

Look. There are intermediate species. Skeptic has the look of a human (probably) and the brainpower of an ape. In the cage. Now.

It’s funny because all the religious people are getting offended whereas the more scientifically minded people are willing to change (even though it is much more likely they’re right).

Also while the scientists don’t believe in creationism they atleast know what it is…

Why does everyone care so much? Can you not just believe what you choose and let others do the same?
146 Watching and waiting // Jul 10, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I think the thing I love the most about humans is our ability to fight ourselves. We strive to prove our own way is right, perhaps someday evolutionists and creationists will evolve into two different strands as well.

I do believe in evolution, but that is just my own belief. I think that “theroy” for evolution is just politcally correct, and that it’s fact, but once again that is just how I feel.

Everyone has done a wonderful job at displaying their own fight, regardless of whether some find their persuasion rude, or unkind. I think that the human struggle is one of the most interesting, long lasting fights that I have wittnessed.
147 Kram // Jul 10, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I like turtles
148 Theist Eater // Jul 11, 2007 at 2:09 am

Well done! Just place a picture of an empty cage and watch the monkeys try to climb inside and eat each other, fair enough proof of creationism as an argument, if you ask me your dark lord satan.

Sure I’ve already descended from heaven and been cast into this eternal damnation of monkeys that like to see their own pig like species as being above monkeys. Sounds like hell? Well hello… this just shows life is what you make it.

Your all a bunch of retarded primates. Go dose up on mind altering substances and reproduces until you consume each other with your vile stench.

P.S - You stink!
149 TheNapalm // Jul 11, 2007 at 8:56 am

I believe everyone in here is extremely ignorant of both sides of the debat.

Heres the key people:
Microevolution is true-things ADAPT like antibiotic resistant bacteria and they change on a small level

Macroevolution is false-nothing has and ever will change on a large, DNA type scale. A monkey is a monkey, a human is a human, and a antibiotic resistant bacteria still has the same DNA sequence and or biological makeup as it did before.
150 Zach // Jul 12, 2007 at 6:58 am

It’s a photo. It’s a joke. Who cares if you people accept that evolution is a fact? You people are just preaching to the choir. There were only like two or three comments by people who claim they disbelieve evolution: they don’t like the joke, they can leave.

What gives any of us the right to mock their belief-system even if it’s illogical? Just because we’re right and they’re wrong doesn’t mean we should be able to tell them what to think or believe… or does it? Unless they try to stop you from believing in evolution, or try to get creationism taught in public schools or something, (and there’s no evidence these individuals have done or support either) who cares?

The picture was a joke… Skeptic made a joke back. Lighten up. For people who are so sure you have all the answers, you get awfully defensive when somebody challenges them. If you’re right, isn’t that enough? Why do you have to make other people think the same as you?
151 bob // Jul 12, 2007 at 11:59 am

Do they clean/dust/wash the cage?
Assuming the cage can last and isn’t tampered with; it’s completely possible that in millions of years something (ie: animal, plant) could exist inside it that would be visible, simply from evolutionary processes on existing microscopic life.

Oh, the irony…
152 ioioio // Jul 12, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Hehe, just wondering, what would it be like if bacteria formed on the cage, so many religious wackos claiming it was god ^-^
153 Duh // Jul 14, 2007 at 12:46 am

Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

not just an idea. A supported idea.
154 skeptic is a moron // Jul 14, 2007 at 6:09 pm

skeptic said “Since people evolved from apes, and both apes and humans currently exist, we should logically expect to see several intermediary species between apes and men.” Sheesh, a moron like you should never, ever use the word “logic” or any form thereof. See, some people are below the stupidity threshold, defined as that level of intelligence below which one is too stupid to be able to know how stupid one is. The way evolution works, child, is sorta like a tree. At some point in the past, apes and humans had a common ancestor, sorta like two branches of a tree that originate on a more central branch. The tree equivalent to your brilliant statement is “SINCE A TREE HAS TWO BRANCHES, WE SHOULD LOGICALLY EXPECT TO SEE SEVERAL INTERMEDIARY BRANCHES BETWEEN THEM.” Want some advice? Stop trying to think - it’s hopeless. Go back to your church and pray to your big daddy in the sky. A child like you certainly needs a daddy.
155 Danny // Jul 22, 2007 at 8:54 pm

wow all you need to say is the word “evolution” on the internet and you get an amazing infusion of ideas… bravo!
156 Henry Sterling // Jul 24, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Many people here have been saying that evolution is not a fact, but it is a nice polished theory. Well, yes, and sort of, but… no.

Here are some clarifications:

In any natural phenomenon there exist both “facts” (observations and/or raw data) and then “laws” (relationships, correlations and effects from causes) and then maybe “theories” (explanations that are sensible within the known principles of science). If there was a hierarchy in science, this would be the respective order of importance. Plantary observations (facts) lead to Universal Gravitation (theory) which may be explained by General Relativity (theory). Theories are NOT uncertain ideas. In everyday speech, they are, hence the confusion.

Evolution is such a natural phenomenon, and, to the confusion of many, it is split into two different entities: the “facts” of evolution and the “theory” of evolution. Facts may be obscured or unobservable, but in this case they are not; the “facts” of evolution are present for all to see in the fossil record, showing a gradual progression from simper forms to more complex ones (if you wish to debate this one, see TalkOrigins or something, there’s no space here). Darwin proposed natural selection as one explanation, and he even attempted to construct a more complete “theory”. The modern synthesis is NOT the same as this, but is the result of a century of “debate”. This debate only refines the “theory”, and will doubtless continue for another hundred years.

To summarise, the “facts” are not in dispute and never were. I would caution our enthusiastic evolutionists not to so boldly proclaim that “evolution is not a fact” and to consider how the scientific method works before commenting in ignorance, becoming guilty of much the same thing that “skeptic” was. Scientific theories, although occupying the highest place in science, are always being refined or replaced. This, as some have noted, is the greatest strength of scientific investigation. The “facts” will always remain quietly constant, patiently waiting for our senses to get keener, as they always have done.
157 haha // Jul 24, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Why is America so religious? It’s backward.
158 skeptic2 // Jul 25, 2007 at 11:32 am

well, until they find remains, a skeleton, or evidence of the existence of a missing link, the entire theory of evolution falls apart. until you find that, you have nothing. except that we evolved from cavemen.

evolution is a “theory” its never been proven.
159 jezzabel // Jul 26, 2007 at 12:11 pm

to everyone except for skeptic.

in regards to skeptic’s comment…

can’t you people take a joke?!

wow.
160 portasio // Jul 28, 2007 at 6:06 am

we all know where we came from. our momma’s “tummy”. why should any of these theories, that divert from this indisputable fact, really matter? aren’t we all trying to play god’s omniscience by slating our ideas on stone with fire? whatever happened to humility? how about being grateful to your mother for delivering you to life and giving you the opportunity to be ingrate and arrogant?
161 Ashley // Jul 29, 2007 at 11:08 pm

“We have the Newton’s Laws of Physics (those are true no matter what), but we don’t have the Law of Evolution. We have the theory.”

In that case, isn’t gravity just a theory?
162 SiriS // Jul 30, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Evolution IS a fact. The THEORY, which is as close to fact as something can get in science, is that is occurs long-term and that we all evolved from the same organism.
163 Bonnie // Jul 31, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I only read the first post by skeptic, so this could have been said - But people didn’t evolve from apes, apes AND people evolved from something else - there’s a huge difference, and if people would understand things they talked about this whole debate would be a lot less annoying.
164 DC10 // Aug 3, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Christians suck lol
165 Tim? // Aug 15, 2007 at 12:55 am

You guys should realize there is scientific proof that 38% of people shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions because they’re so ill-informed. We can assume that skeptic is one of them.
166 Grim // Aug 15, 2007 at 3:07 am

Theory and proof are both the same as “proof” of something is often heard from others(”scientists have discovered a black hole”). And even “proof” observed by yourself can be “false” because of tricks the mind can play,think of magicians and illusionists.

The belief in something to be fact is the only thing that makes it a fact.
167 Scott // Sep 25, 2007 at 5:53 am

Ok, I hear the ranting on both sides.

I am prepared to side with the evolutionists if one simple answer can be provided.

The “first” life. The original micro-organism. Where did it come from? How did we get life from no life?

Should be simple enough.
168 Experimental Pole » Blog Archive » Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) // Oct 28, 2007 at 8:55 am

[...] read more | digg story [...]
169 bwhahahaha // Feb 14, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Americans are soooooooooooooo stupid.
170 mibes // May 13, 2008 at 4:56 pm

[Americans are soooooooooooooo stupid.] - seconded
171 kjdamrau // May 21, 2008 at 8:49 pm

I am descended from Germans. There are still Germans.

Why does anybody bother trying to engage in intellectual discourse with the creationist? They lack the intellectual tools to do anything more than frustrate us.

Pat them on the head. Smile at them as you would a retarded child. Send them off to the intellectual darkness of their bronze age myths.
172 Pagancornflake // May 29, 2008 at 9:20 am

I wonder how many people have had an epiphany after reading all of these comments..

haha said,
July 24, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Why is America so religious? It’s backward.

bwhahahaha said,
February 14, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Americans are soooooooooooooo stupid.

@haha, Its pretty much a cultural paradigm at this stage. Often when I reveal to another American that I am an atheist (i.e. I possess a logical, deductive form of reasoning in the context of origins and the necessity of faith in contemporary society) they recoil or judge me as some kind of malcontent. There is urgent need of a paradigm shift in America which (judging from their imperialistic foreign policy) will probably take the form of another war. Sad but true IMHO

@bwhahahaha, no, your attempt at generalising is stupid. I have an IQ of 135, making me more intelligent than approximatley 80% of people (I am also an American, in case you are lacking in deductive skills). I wont waste any more time on you.
173 Illuminatiscott // Aug 15, 2008 at 8:37 am

I find that creationists in general are caught in their own microcosm of logic, wherein logic is based on God and thus using any form of logic which does not refer back to God is incorrect logic. It’s a closed loop, and in most cases it’s nigh impossible to extricate them from such a cycle of ignorance.

There is no debate that evolution occurs. The debate is how, why, etc., but there has been not a single scientific paper published by a biologist, geneticist, or any other *qualified* individual which casts doubt on the fact that evolution, in some form or another, occurs.

Someone will respond to the above comment saying that to be “qualified” one has to already believe in evolution, and thus the system is biased. Not so: the California court system recently upheld a California university decision to deny course credit from courses which openly denied evolution. This is an example of an impartial outside observer (court) ruling that evolution is necessary to proper scientific understanding.

Now, some of you will say that the courts and thus governments are biased against Christians. Guess what: take a look at any damn US currency you own and then tell me that the US government supports atheism and science over religion. Americans are living in a religiously oppressive country where Christianity, or some Judaic religion, is a requirement for any sort of public office: there has been only one publicly open atheist in history elected to congress. If you fundamentalists continue claiming that you’re under attack, under-appreciated and repressed, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you’re telling the truth.

We atheists shall rise.
174 Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) « Birdbaths // Aug 21, 2008 at 8:45 am

[...] read more | digg story [...]
175 Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) « Aminah89’s Weblog // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:07 pm

[...] read more | digg story Posted in Uncategorized. [...]
176 Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) « Bird Cages // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:44 pm

[...] read more | digg story [...]
177 David // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:21 am

“Here’s an idea for another sign…

“The Evolution Zoo Presents: The Half-Man, Half-Ape

Since people evolved from apes, and both apes and humans currently exist, we should logically expect to see several intermediary species between apes and men. We haven’t ever found any, but we figure they all live somewhere, maybe in the Amazonian jungle. As soon as we find them, we’ll put them in this cage. Check back later.” ”

-skeptic

If this is truly what you believe evolution to be, I may have just lost all faith in humanity. You’ll be waiting a few million years there, buddy, and even then, the chances of an ape - human hybrid evolving in present time are so slim, it’s mind boggling.

Whatever arguments you may have in favor of creationism, I will still believe that ever changing scientific studies triumphs over outright primitive assumptions that are subject to no change, even with overwhelming evidence any day.
178 Creationism - ‘The empty cage’ (pic) // Aug 29, 2008 at 11:53 am

[...] read more | digg story [...]
179 Skeptic fan // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:02 pm

Skeptic, while your ignorance is somewhat astounding, that was a fantastic bit of trolling. Kudos.
180 Danielle // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:08 am

Lol that cage will remain empty until it falls apart from rusting and age.
181 Kate // Feb 9, 2009 at 8:07 am

Think: Evolution has a great deal of support. Science is about support, not absolute proof. If you’ll pardon the expression, the devil is in the details. That is what science is still debating, NOT the general principle.
Besides, if whether something is true or not depends on a lack of debate and schisms, then religion is in worse trouble than science.

Jon: Evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact that animals suited to their environments survive and those that are not die. The theory of Evolution gives us a working (and evolving) reason why.
I wish people would not use the word “theory” as a put-down. A unified, elegant theory is actually superior to a jumble of disjointed facts.

Mark: Don’t do that. It’s funny but saying people evolved from apes is not accurate and lends ammunition to the “intelligent design” lobby.

Codemonkey: So… why is evolution flawed and creationism a better alternative? I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument from your side.
And the reason we fight about this is because if we did not, the religious would get their way ALL the time as opposed to just 80% of it. We fight to make sure kids get a good science education and that medical science can continue to advance.
We’ll shut up and stop fighting when the creationists quit their lobbying to send us back to the Stone Age.

Children of God: You’re funny! That is, I hope you’re being funny.
182 Cogs // Feb 9, 2009 at 6:54 pm

Just dropping in to say that humans did not evolve from apes/monkeys. Good to see that all you creationists are doing your pseudo-research.

We evolved from an *APE-LIKE* ancestor.

Don’t act so damn arrogant. 95% of the time, when pressed for a reason to explain why people feel so strongly towards the idea of coming from an ape-like ancestor, the answer I get is “Because they’re MONKEYS!”. It’s sheer arrogance.

What makes YOU so much better than an ape-like creature?
183 akela // Feb 20, 2009 at 7:04 pm

Don’t forget George Carlin’s observation:”think of how stupid the average person is and realize that 50% are stupider than that.”

After reading these posts I am pretty sure that the lower half is pretty well represented, particularly on the creationists side.

Kudos to the evolving ex-mormon. Right on, Bro’
184 casey // Apr 18, 2009 at 8:40 pm

“If you fundamentalists continue claiming that you’re under attack, under-appreciated and repressed, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you’re telling the truth.

We atheists shall rise.”

–Illuminatiscott

I like this a lot! Well said.
185 Ulf // Apr 19, 2009 at 1:06 am

Great. Really GREAT! Did anything happen? Did The Big Boss place somebody or something in there now? :rofl:
186 Mike // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:40 am

Darwin FTW!!

Science Humor

It’s alive!

Categories

Archives

Recent Comments

Creationism ‘ The empty cage ‘

July 3rd, 2007 · 186 Comments · images, pseudoscience

186 responses so far ↓

Leave a Comment

Search It!

Recent Entries