Just when you thought it was safe to go to Alaska..........


http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/...gn_and_the_ala/



Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both.


http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/...gn_and_the_ala/

Looks like a repug to me!

Oh geez, great minds think alike,LOL...I jsut added my thread after you...I did a bit more surfing before posting,

dang...

merge threads please! Plodder was first

That's Ok ChiffonBreath....great minds think alike. I came across this story just after I heard Randi talking about the Repubs and creationist theories and thought it would be a good add on.

6,000! 6,000! 6,000!

Nothing's older than that, 'cause the Bible says so. And Sarah Palin knows that men and dinosaurs once lived together in harmony, because she's see that Flintstone documentary on the teevee....

And we can't deny -- she TALKS to SNAKES every day.

I am a walking talking Christian that knows science is good. A man wrote the bible, and then it was handed down from generation to generation. There is some good stuff in there, but damn, please don't give me a lobotomy. Einstein with science proved the big bang, and on radio equipment you can hear the resonant remaining radiation from said "Big Bang". The earth is many millions of years old, carbon dating confirms that. You cannot pick and choose out of science what is good and bad by putting it up against the bible. The bible was trying to relate the makers time frame to ours, that is impossible. They did the best they could with a rock and a chisel. The bible and science should walk hand in hand. So far, if you use your brain, they are. If you wish to listen to religious pandering, enjoy the koolaid. Lets throw out the baby in the Nile water. People have been sheeple like forever and it seems to never stop. Its the only reason there are still repugs.

Well if she didn't before, considering just McCain's staff alone, now she sure does!

Bible says nothing of 6000. That's a fundamental translation based on numerical analysis not taking into account the relation to God and time that is stated in the bible.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...context=context

Time doesn't necessarily have to exist for a being that has always existed... it's only really necessary for beginnings and endings.

The fact of the matter is that science doesn't disprove creationism as creationism does not disprove science. There is a possibility that a god created a universe that evolved based on the rules/laws he(i don't believe god is gender specific) drew up that govern our universe... the same laws from which our science can be based, based on the assumption that there are rules/laws that govern our existence. There is no reason to believe that our existence is governed by laws. There is science now that makes a lot of sense that points towards the existence 11 dimensions and energy-matter that is a billionth the size of atoms and quarks (String Theory.) The problem with science is that its based on our senses, which are our limitation to understanding our universe. Science is great; that's why I majored in it. It still has it's limitations.

I don't approve of creationism in the classroom for the same reason I don't like science professors asserting their atheistic ideologies in the classroom; it gives credence to a belief system that requires faith (or not caring whether or not there is a god pertaining to atheism.) There are plenty of things that occur in science that cannot be accounted for when it comes to our human and universal existence. Science does not negate god, nor does the vice versa occur. (Genesis looks like an evolutionary picture if there ever was one.) Even if a person wants to assume everything in the universe always existed, you have to ask yourself: Why is our universe based off of laws that govern our existence? Scientist suggest that the other dimensions proposed in String Theory could be governed by other laws. The fact that science has proposed something that can never be studied by scientific method (though they are proposing some gravaton experiment) means there are questions that science will leave unanswered. It gives rise to the question of whether or not another dimension could simply be the heavens or otherwise stated existences posited by religious texts.

I also don't approve of creationism in school because there are different forms of that belief. To my knowledge, the Christian-Scientist, that is so strongly correlated to Hollywood with John Travolta and (I believe) Tom Cruise, and the like, believe that aliens are our makers that will return to get us or something like that.

String Theory Link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

Science has no god.

What do you imagine are "atheistic idologies?"

Like religious ideologies they vary. The basic principle being, God doesn't exist.

Of course it doesn't. And yet that is precisely what Palin believes in -- the "young earth theory". And that dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together.

She's an evolution denier.

Exactly... If you implement creationism... then you have the argument of what creation design theory. At least with evolution we have one theory.

Excellent post JRunRun.



Doesn't Atheism require faith it's self?

I enjoy your posts man, lots of common sense. I don't quite get that "string theory" though.

So, in other words, the Earth is 13,000 years old, not just 6,000 (when you add in 1,000 years for each "day" it took god to create everything). That makes MUCH more sense!

Atheism, by it's very definition, neither requires faith nor do atheists have any (as far as spiritual matters). Atheism simply means that they, having no evidence of "something" choose the default, non-existence. And I'm talking about sane atheists. There are "ultra-strong" atheists who assert non-existence as an absolute fact--I don't accept that as atheism. At the other end, agnostic atheists, who assert you CANNOT prove existence. Both assertions, to me, lack common sanity. A standard, garden-variety, sane atheist, simply says, "hey, show me a talking snake or a vocal burning bush or...whatever...and we'll talk."

LOL I've noticed that this "parable" business has become a favorite of theistic apologists. The Bible, does, indeed have lots of parables, but in most cases, it's pointed out right in the context of the text. I don't accept that whenever the Bible makes an outlandish claim, you can brush it off as, "oh, that's a parable."

So you have narrowed it down to one idiology.
Do you think that people in college should be ignorant of the fact that some people lack belief in Gods?

Science is inherently materialistic. It attempts to explain the order of things by means of the facts at hand. Since William of Ockham's day, any obligation to invoke un-observed elements to substantiate one's theory is a weakness.

Since the Renaissance, people have by and large come to terms with the uncomfortable realization that as more becomes understood by scientific principles, then more falls under the mechanics of the physical laws, and there is less need to invoke supernatural intervention into the workings of the universe.

Deists have extrapolated this to the concept that God no longer sets His hand to the material world and its workings. Theists disagree.

The main point is, these disagreements have been subtle, polite and calm over the last three hundred years or so. Suddenly, we have decided to fan them into flames. I see no reason why.

This marks not a strengthening of religiosity, but perhaps a mini-Dark Age in religious ontology.

College students talk. College students protest. College students are usually college students because of their intelligence. College students are either well aware, or they become well aware, of each others beliefs. Those beliefs, however, should not be imposed in lessons as facts; unless, there is a class that is optional to learn the subject matter.

Thank you... It absolutely requires faith to assert something as absolute that has not been substantiated. There is only one group in the debate that does not require faith... the group that just doesn't care one way or the other.

Yeah... That string theory is pretty complex. Right now it just boils down to mathematical calculations that can calculate quantum mechanics and general relativity without anomalies. The equation can be boiled down geometrically to show particles so small they cannot be observed. The theory is very new to me... my little cousin has been trying to talk to me about it forever since her science teacher brought it up. Then, another member of the boards linked me to it in another discussion of creationism. It's still pretty confusing... as I'm sure it is for plenty of scientist that study it. They tried to simplify everything to layman's terms and I think they did a pretty good job.

That is a matter of opinion and most likely a myth.

Does it require faith to advocate/affirm the non-existence of pink elephants? No!

Atheism requires no faith(regarding the existence of a supreme being)....and most any other atheists will tell you the same.

Myth: Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith

I'm a Strong (and sometimes militant) Atheist and I assure you that my stance requires ZERO faith.

Oh.... about Intelligent Design:

As I have stated, I have interacted with said maker, so I am either delusional or a lier, take your pick. I can live with it. I cannot deny my experience to myself. Nor the many coincidences and miracles. Someone laid the egg.

My definition of faith is believing in something without material evidence.

The pink elephant argument is expected. The pink elephant has no bearing on the existence of our universe. We can both agree that our universe exist. We can also both agree that we don't know how/if it started, and why it has laws that govern it in the first place. Your link is to one source of an idea of what athiesm means to that group of people. I'm sure there are other athiests with differing beliefs of what athiesm means to them. I can point to different sources for what Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and many other religions and what it means to those people. The basic difference we're talking about is whether or not the universe was created (not humans created... the universe) or was already here to begin with. To be an athiest, you have to scientifically believe that all matter of the universe has always been in existence without the necessity of a creator. A creationist (from my POV) believes that rather than the matter of the universe having always existed, there is some figure that was always in existence that created/started the universe. The problem with both points of view is that neither can be substantiated with material evidence... because there's no way to explore beyond the big bang. Hence, it requires faith (by my definition of faith above) to believe either.

The Earth is 6000 years old, nevermind that pesky science about carbon dating or the fact that light has been traveling from distant galaxies for longer than that.

Man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time and T-Rex was created by God to eat man for his sins. The Earth is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth. Rain is actually God's pee.

With science they have dated the beginning of the universe. This place is extremely old.

If they really got what they wanted, science would be outlawed. The Grand Canyon was created by the 'great flood'.

I was on you tube. I found a theory where the earth is growing. They decrease the size of the earth and all the land masses fit. I found it pretty interesting.

I liked my 8th grade science teacher's response

teacher: Where does water come from?
student: God
teacher: ok.....umm...where else?

lmao

The main reason that Republicans love the idea of Creationism is that it denies future Evolution. In this way the preachers and ministers on high tell the people that they are created by God and are currently at the height of possible human ability. Meaning: We did not evolve from lesser beings and will not and cannot transform into higher beings. This is the lie that they are forcing us to live. Man cannot do away with war because we are already the best we can be and we are flawed and can't ever create a better world. The Christian God made us completely evolved as we can handle when he made us in his infinite wisdom. There is no improvement possible. We cannot be more than we are and it is blasphemy to think otherwise.

Right wing Christians believe conflict and war is an inevitable fact of life and we must deal with the wars and disease that we have. We have no choice but to deal with it and any other bad thing God decides that we must experience. It is not possible for us to become wiser advance beings and we must not believe or act in a way that demonstrates otherwise. It is considered lunatic fringe to believe that man can evolve from his current world problems and way of experiencing our world. As we know the people in charge of this drama are the people who are becoming richer in the war machine business, so War Mongers and Right Wing Christians are as close as Catholics and the Inquisition.

We CAN evolve into more superior beings who can settle conflict without murder and stealing and destroying people's homes and all the other horrible things our government expects us to believe is the way it HAS to be. We can and should have done so long before now. However, now we are having our voice heard and together we can stand up and say in one loud voice, "We can Evolve, We will Evolve, and we plan to live in a different world where people like the Bushs are never given control." Republicans fight against human evolution, it's crazy and it's the worst thing we could ever let anyone do to us. They earn all their money in the war and disease business. They never want us to evolve. Think about it. It's true.

Atheism requires no faith regarding gods or theism.
I know there is no Ferrari GT in my driveway and I know there is no god.
Beliefs in deities are born from human imagination, just like elves and fairies.

String theory makes testable predictions about the nature of the universe. (Unfortunately, some require conditions for testing we can't duplicate at present.)

Do you think that there is a college where a class on atheism is mandatory?

Or is science the issue?

Is there a monster under you bed too?