Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

May 26, 2012 By FRANK ELTMAN , Associated Press
In this 2008 photo provided by the Turkana Basin Institute, paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey discusses the evidence for human evolution over a collection of hominin fossil casts at the Turkana Basin Institute's Ileret research facility in northern Kenya. Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history sometime in the next 15 to 30 years. "If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges." (AP Photo/Turkana Basin Institute, Bob Campbell)

(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born expects will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

Leakey, a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island, recently spent several weeks in New York promoting the Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya. The institute, where Leakey spends most of his time, welcomes researchers and scientists from around the world dedicated to unearthing the origins of mankind in an area rich with fossils.

His friend, Paul Simon, performed at a May 2 fundraiser for the institute in Manhattan that collected more than $2 million. A National Geographic documentary on his work at Turkana aired this month on public television.

Now 67, Leakey is the son of the late Louis and Mary Leakey and conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise. The family claims to have unearthed "much of the existing for ."

On the eve of his return to Africa earlier this week, Leakey spoke to The Associated Press in New York City about the past and the future.

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena," Leakey says. "Extinction is always driven by . Environmental change is always driven by . Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one."

Any hope for mankind's future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.

"If we're spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?" he asked.

"If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."

Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.

"If you tell me, well, people really need a faith ... I understand that," he said.

"I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife ...."

Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s. His team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as "Turkana Boy," the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature.

In the late 1980s, Leakey began a career in government service in Kenya, heading the Kenya Wildlife Service. He led the quest to protect elephants from poachers who were killing the animals at an alarming rate in order to harvest their valuable ivory tusks. He gathered 12 tons of confiscated ivory in Nairobi National Park and set it afire in a 1989 demonstration that attracted worldwide headlines.

In 1993, Leakey crashed a small propeller-driven plane; his lower legs were later amputated and he now gets around on artificial limbs. There were suspicions the plane had been sabotaged by his political enemies, but it was never proven.

About a decade ago, he visited Stony Brook University on eastern Long Island, a part of the State University of New York, as a guest lecturer. Then-President Shirley Strum Kenny began lobbying Leakey to join the faculty. It was a process that took about two years; he relented after returning to the campus to accept an honorary degree.

Kenny convinced him that he could remain in Kenya most of the time, where Stony Brook anthropology students could visit and learn about his work. And the college founded in 1957 would benefit from the gravitas of such a noted professor on its faculty.

"It was much easier to work with a new university that didn't have a 200-year-old image where it was so set in its ways like some of the Ivy League schools that you couldn't really change what they did and what they thought," he said.

Earlier this month, Paul Simon performed at a benefit dinner for the Turkana Basin Institute. IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond and his wife, Peggy Bonapace Gelfond, and billionaire hedge fund investor Jim Simons and his wife, Marilyn, were among those attending the exclusive show in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood.

Simon agreed to allow his music to be performed on the National Geographic documentary airing on PBS and donated an autographed guitar at the fundraiser that sold for nearly $20,000.

Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about the future.

"We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."

Explore further: Evolution of marine crocodilians constrained by ocean temperatures

3.6 /5 (29 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Did climate change shape human evolution?

Apr 24, 2012

(Phys.org) -- As human ancestors rose on two feet in Africa and began their migrations across the world, the climate around them got warmer, and colder, wetter and drier. The plants and animals they competed ...

Kenya's human fossils disturb church

Aug 13, 2006

Kenya's National Museum, home to one of the world's greatest collections of human ancestral bones, is caught between religious fundamentalists and scientists.

Recommended for you

Are flexible parents adaptable parents?

Aug 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —The flexibility of parental behaviours to respond to changes in behaviour of their offspring may actually constrain the ability of parents to adapt to changes in their wider environment.

UMSL scholar examines evolution of learning

Aug 14, 2014

Why do monkeys learn to be afraid of snakes and not flowers? Is this knowledge the result of evolution by natural selection? Did the monkeys that couldn't learn that association quickly die and not reproduce?

User comments : 134

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mrlewish
1.6 / 5 (32) May 26, 2012
When pigs fly.

Maybe Mr. Leaky better get back to being a paleoanthropologist instead of concerning himself with peoples beliefs.

One would think being an anthropologist he would know better.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (32) May 26, 2012
When pigs fly.

Maybe Mr. Leaky better get back to being a paleoanthropologist instead of concerning himself with peoples beliefs.

One would think being an anthropologist he would know better.
Dont worry. I am sure incontrovertible proof will not affect the faith of people like you in your feelgood superstitions. That is the nature of addiction. Unfortunately...

"We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."

-Your disease of addiction threatens to kill us all. This makes everyone concerned with your 'beliefs'.
Lucio
2.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2012
Religion again!!! It is not religion that is an obstacle in the way of science, it is the Clergy who are afraid for their salary and retirement. Every time research hits the old scriptures beliefs the Clergy spring up to defend God. What would God do without them? He has needs!!! He needs humans!!! To defend him. I believe there is also a parallel evolution backward: when the young generation unable to READ, follows the Old Scriptures. Unless those who want to include Dinosaurs in Noah's Ark shut up, the evolution is backward.
simplicio
4.4 / 5 (19) May 26, 2012
What debate?
Russkiycremepuff
1.2 / 5 (22) May 26, 2012
Re: that we are all Africans. That is nonsense and I have asked all of my roommates for a consensus regarding this article and Dr. Leakey. We have all decided to call ourselves "Pangaeans", since Africa and Europe and other continents were connected geologically to each other before the great drifting apart.
Dr. Leakey was born in Kenya, therefore he is right to call himself African, or Afrikaan. Since I am born in Russia, I must call myself Russian and not a pretend African. In fact, I find it hard to believe that every animal, mollusk, worm, bird, insect, etc. etc. had to have their ancestry beginning in Africa.
Or is it that Dr. Leakey believes that only the humans started there?
And who is to say that humans did not have their start simultaneously elsewhere also? Just because the 2 million year old bones were not found in Manchuria does not mean that the evolution did not happen there also.
Religion is a crutch for billions of people. They can keep it. Not for me.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (15) May 26, 2012
The ape may not wish to be called African, but his ape forebears know better. And they spend their days swinging from trees.

"Since I am born in Russia, I must call myself Russian" - PhoneyRussian
DavidW
1.4 / 5 (22) May 26, 2012
If we can't admit that Truth and Life are the only Way, then we shouldn't be talking at all. Truth and Life are eternal. We can't change the past. That is a self-evident eternal Truth. Life can be proven to exist, but Truth cannot be proven without Life. Therefore, Life is also eternal and can never be proven otherwise. We now have science that backs this up. We are eternally equal under the Truth and only by Life being a self-evident Truth do we have a right to Life. Truth and Life are the Master and the Way, as neither are they our creation or is our ability ever able to be above them.
Russkiycremepuff
1.5 / 5 (15) May 26, 2012
I have no time in this life to be concerned in who or what people believe in, unless their belief is threatening to my life and life of my family and friends.They are not going to stop when I yell at them to STOP!!! Therefore, I will be concerned about me. What they believe is not my problem and I will not become ill over such things. Life is too short.
Russkiycremepuff
1.3 / 5 (16) May 26, 2012
I see that the pedophile terrorist has dropped by to tell some more lies concerning my heritage.
Vendicar_Decarian/Vendicar Dickarian/ScottNudds/ScottDouglas, et al is obviously far removed from sanity. It is no wonder that he is not allowed back into the United States. A very dangerous person who wishes to molest young children.
Russkiycremepuff
1.3 / 5 (15) May 26, 2012
I wonder where did this Vendicar person get his "phoney Russian" lies. There is nobody in Phys.org who knows me. I believe he makes it up due to my antagonism toward his Socialist ideals and his pretending to live his life by old Communist maxim written by Karl Marx.
Shabs42
4 / 5 (8) May 26, 2012
Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena


So man created volcanoes and asteroids? Good to know.

I look at proving evolution as similar to proving the Earth is round or orbits the sun. 99% of the educated (including those who are religious and educated) know it and accept it as fact. The religious (and those who don't want to be "descended from a monkey") resist, then find a way to interpret their religious texts to support the indisputable science. Some people will always hold out and refuse to accept it.

The family claims to have unearthed "much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution."


Probably not the best way to convince nonbelievers. Only makes it easier to say that it's all a hoax.
Russkiycremepuff
1.3 / 5 (16) May 26, 2012
(laughing) Who really prefers to be considered as descending from chimpanzees or gorillas? Not I. Of course, there was a shrew-like creature that I read about long ago who may be MY ancestor.
Whatwhat
1.6 / 5 (8) May 26, 2012
Why doe no one try to take a semi rational approach to what we call "religion"? It is either anthropomorphic with all awareness shaped in the image of man or else everything is completely dead and randomness magically becomes order. The only philosophy I have seen come even close to a middle path is Spinoza. I believe Spinoza and Einstein were on the right path and for some reason we skipped of the tracks into some Hegelian dialectical nightmare.
Russkiycremepuff
1.4 / 5 (17) May 26, 2012
I see the terrorist pedophile Vendicar is not posting here at the moment. If anybody is interested to read about his notoriety as terrorist who is possible Palestinian and who prefers children to women and has been arrested for threatening the President George W. Bush, do a Google search for "Scott Nudds". You will find about 10 pages for him.
Tim_Riches
3.7 / 5 (9) May 26, 2012
Truth and Life are the Master and the Way, as neither are they our creation or is our ability ever able to be above them.


Absurd. Semantics. Sophistry.
Maat
2.1 / 5 (9) May 26, 2012
Why doe no one try to take a semi rational approach to what we call "religion"? It is either anthropomorphic with all awareness shaped in the image of man or else everything is completely dead and randomness magically becomes order. The only philosophy I have seen come even close to a middle path is Spinoza. I believe Spinoza and Einstein were on the right path and for some reason we skipped of the tracks into some Hegelian dialectical nightmare.


It's called Pantheism and it has been around for hundreds of years... also Deism would fit your description as well.
zielwolf
4.6 / 5 (20) May 26, 2012
Considering my creationist friends still happily look at the night sky and claim it is 6000 years old and God just made it to "look that way" referring to starlight many millions & even billions of years old, I fear it will take much longer than 15-30 years. Basically, anything that doesn't fir the creationist picture, well, God just created it especially to "look that way".
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (18) May 26, 2012
Yep, if you've ever been to the bible belt in the US you'll realize what an awful situation it is here...

It's not innocent ignorance either, they TRAIN their children in their beliefs, the majority of home schooling in this country is for religious reasons. They send their kids to bible camps that actually teach them to be "warriors of God", if you don't believe me watch the documentary Jesus Camp, they are trained to actively fight anyone who challenges their beliefs and that anyone who tries to convince them that they are wrong is being manipulated by Satan to attempt to deceive them. The documentary is on netflix last I checked. It's extremely disturbing.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (13) May 26, 2012
The PhonyRuskie seems very interested in what unidentified bloggers posted about Vendicar Decarian decades ago.

"I see that the pedophile terrorist..." - PhonyRuskie

Do you have any evidence to backup your assertions? Or do they just hate filled accusations from Vendicar Decarian's long destroyed enemies?
Deathclock
3.8 / 5 (17) May 26, 2012
It's also available to watch for free here:
http://freedocume...lmID=226

Everyone who thinks that religion isn't that bad and that we should all just tolerate each other and that other people's beliefs can't harm you should watch this video, because the Evangelical Christians consider this a war and anyone who doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible is the enemy.
Whatwhat
1 / 5 (7) May 26, 2012
Why does no one try to take a semi rational approach to what we call "religion"? It is either anthropomorphic with all awareness shaped in the image of man or else everything is completely dead and randomness magically becomes order. The only philosophy I have seen come even close to a middle path is Spinoza. I believe Spinoza and Einstein were on the right path and for some reason we skipped of the tracks into some Hegelian dialectical nightmare.


It's called Pantheism and it has been around for hundreds of years... also Deism would fit your description as well.


You may interpret it as Pantheism, I don't.
Terriva
1.7 / 5 (12) May 27, 2012
skepticism over evolution will soon be history
I'd rather say, the modern paleontology will find new and new evidences for interfering the terrestrial evolution of life from cosmic space.

http://www.s8int....ts1.html

http://www.ancien...arts.htm

The plain ignorance of these findings will not help anyone here.
Howard_Vickridge
3.5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
Please, Don't feed the trolls.
alfie_null
4.1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
... they TRAIN their children in their beliefs ... they are trained to actively fight anyone who challenges their beliefs and that anyone who tries to convince them that they are wrong is being manipulated by Satan to attempt to deceive them.

These sects, as groups, as entities, take actions to ensure their future existence (i.e. to succeed). In a weird, ironic way, this also is evolution.
Mr_G
4.5 / 5 (17) May 27, 2012
Creationist trick: Invoke a debate where none exists.
There is no debate on evolution. Evolution is a fact.

G
Egleton
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
You must understand Leakeys delicate position.
He and I were born white men in Africa.
He is obliged to make these comments or be expelled from what he considers to be home.
There are more and more aBantu in Europe and less an less Whites in Africa.
Just who is colonising whom?
Terriva
1.6 / 5 (14) May 27, 2012
There is no debate on evolution. Evolution is a fact.
Evolution is still a theory - a nice and working theory indeed - but still just a theory. A honest, unbiased science shouldn't mix the theories and the facts, on which these theories are based. The fact is, we found many fossil species, which are more primitive forms of life. We know about shared genome sequences, which usually point to the common primitive origin of the life. But so far we didn't really observe any formation of new species. I'm not an enemy of evolutionary theory in any way, as I even trying to extend this concept outside the world of organic life occasionally. But I'm an enemy of non-scientific thinking, and the mixing theories with facts belongs into such a thinking too. We should still remain prepared to the fact, that the evolution is not the only mechanism of the changes of living forms at this planet, Darwinian evolution the less. Such a finding wouldn't mean, that the evolutionary theory is wrong.
Quarky1
4.6 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
The argument will never be won, because the very essence of faith, as I've observed at least, is the ability to believe any arbitrary piece of scripture, dogma, etc. with a fervor so unbreakable that they create their own reality around them like a bubble. Can't dispel that sort of dedicated denial of sensory input and logic...
Quarky1
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
@Terriva - Just curious, when you say that evolution is not the only mechanism of change, and mention other forms of evolution besides Darwinian, what are you referring to exactly? I just got a funny idea for "Biblical Evolution" pop into my head when I read your comment ;-P
Quarky1
4 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
Also, I agree that we are on the cusp of the first mass extinction event caused not by a meteorite or volcanic eruption, but by a single species (three guess which one). I hear a lot of pretty panicked sounding research on the web/news/journals about the ocean's food chain, and how it may be just about to collapse and take out most of the species on Earth with it. I can't help but feel that we could have done much better, and I really regret that we as humans are such a selfish and willfully ignorant species...
epsi00
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2012
"We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."

I hope we go extinct soon so that other species may live in peace.
fully attached
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
Also, I agree that we are on the cusp of the first mass extinction event caused not by a meteorite or volcanic eruption, but by a single species (three guess which one). I hear a lot of pretty panicked sounding research on the web/news/journals about the ocean's food chain, and how it may be just about to collapse and take out most of the species on Earth with it. I can't help but feel that we could have done much better, and I really regret that we as humans are such a selfish and willfully ignorant species...


your view is totally correct. applying psychology, a science, will show why there is a large portion of society that is selfish and willfully ignorant. our societal structure is based on two harmful human creations, money and religion. religion would have people believe that this world will end and that believers following trivial rules(specific agendas serving specific people) will gain an afterlife, immortality, a place in heaven. simple people perpetuating stupid.
fully attached
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2012
"We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."

I hope we go extinct soon so that other species may live in peace.


if people go extinct then this planet can blow up as well and reform in a few hundred million years to restart the cycle again. it is only about humans and the environment which enables and sustains all life as we know it.
fully attached
1.5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2012
religion has made people dumb and numb to the machinations of money. money is perceived as a resource and not enough people are free of religion to see it as an anti-resource. money is an anti-resource in that it will convince most humans to surrender land, true resources, their own life energies and the their children's future for the inked paper of which the value is wholly controlled by a certain few people.
many people gripe about problems in society but if they would consider that the problems are actually symptoms of negative preexisting conditions that have not yet been addressed completely. it is said that if things are built better the need for repairs or upgrades, which usually cost more, would be unneeded. it is very clear on why we have "problems", or as i would define them symptoms of existing negatives, for problems need solutions which cost money of which the bill is footed by believers.
there is a whole industry based on the anti-resource called the financial arena.
CardacianNeverid
3.9 / 5 (11) May 27, 2012
if people go extinct then this planet can blow up as well and reform in a few hundred million years to restart the cycle again -fully

In a few hundred million years (500m plus) the planet will be unlivable for animals anyway, so the point is moot.
Deathclock
4.2 / 5 (20) May 27, 2012
There is no debate on evolution. Evolution is a fact.
Evolution is still a theory - a nice and working theory indeed - but still just a theory.


When someone says that something is "just a theory" it tells me that they have no idea what the word "theory" means when scientists say it.

Secondly, there are facts of evolution and there is the theory of evolution. The theory is the overarching explanation that ties the facts together into a larger understanding of natural processes. Theories are COMPOSED of facts... of measurements and observations.

Some of you guys really need to go back to grade school and learn what science is and how it operates.
fully attached
2.3 / 5 (3) May 27, 2012
people in the finance industry somehow end up with more resource rights than those that actually produce things of value. i can prove that language manipulation and creation of vocabulary have supported those with personal agenda affecting humans and environment in a dire negative way. the finance industry has created nothing but jargon and strife throughout its history but yet the upper echelons in finance are near absolute rule over humanity and the environment.
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
and mention other forms of evolution besides Darwinian, what are you referring to exactly?
There are two main mechanisms of adaptation: the intrinsic one based on natural selection in phylogenetical tree and called the Darwinian or neo-Darwinian approach - and the extrinsic Lamarckian approach, based on inheritance and horizontal gene transfer. The Darwinian evolution appears simpler and more straightforward - so it was adopted first, but with increased volume of knowledge the contribution of other organisms and their environment is considered more and more seriously. We can find many evidences of this paradigm shift even here, at PhysOrg. It means, the scope of evolution expands gradually: it's not just the organism itself, which contributes to its evolution, but the influence of the whole environment too. The scope of this influence expands gradually, so we can expect some day, it will cross the boundaries of Earth.
fully attached
2.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2012
if people go extinct then this planet can blow up as well and reform in a few hundred million years to restart the cycle again -fully

In a few hundred million years (500m plus) the planet will be unlivable for animals anyway, so the point is moot.


exactly, the point would be moot if we cannot get over the stupid portion of ourselves. the only value that any human can have will only be realized if human existence continues to record it.
ShotmanMaslo
3.4 / 5 (10) May 27, 2012
Evolution is still a theory - a nice and working theory indeed - but still just a theory.


The word you are looking for is hypothesis.

Theory does not mean scientists are unsure at all. Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

As for the evolution debate, that is not the one you can win with facts, because deniers of evolution are not interested in facts. So no, I dont think this debate will be history anytime soon.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
The confusion of theories with facts is what the religion is called. I don't believe in Biblical creation at all, but to consider, the evolution is the only mechanism, which contributed to the formation of life in its present state is just a theory. We still cannot exclude various panspermia events for example.
Terriva
1.7 / 5 (12) May 27, 2012
In my opinion the proponents of evolution are too unsure with their stance, so they're not opened to discussion and they tend to act aggressively against all proponents of any stance, which could impeach their religion in the same way, like the proponents of Big Bang theory (or proponents of geocentric model of solar system in Galileo era), for example. I don't consider normal, when rationally thinking people are downvoting the posts without arguments, like these two last mine one. This is an apparent evidence of religious thinking for me. I don't care, if you're brainwashed with Holy Church propaganda, or with Big Bang or evolutionary theory propaganda. One thing, which I really do hate more, than the religious Christians are the religious proponents of scientific theories, because the scientists are supposed to avoid the religious way of thinking by their very definition. The religious proponents of mainstream theories are not only religious, but a hypocrites too.
CapitalismPrevails
1.8 / 5 (12) May 27, 2012
predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
Uh oh, i guess religious people better run for the hills as if evolution automatically debunks the theory God created the universe. Don't get me wrong thou, i'm Agnostic. I believe atheists have FAITH God doesn't exist and theists have FAITH God does exist. But people who believe in "Climate Change" have all the FAITH in the world in what it's promoters say despite the contrary.
Any hope for mankind's future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.
Which indicates the climate change(post ClimateGate term, not AGW anymore) does occur at slow incremental rates. And animal species adapted individually without a state micromanaging them to adapt. People must understand that Capitalism Prevails because capitalism IS evolution.
Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion
LOL, i'm picking up this guys sarcasm, aren't you?
fully attached
4.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2012
really? some hate religion and god but love money?
Terriva
1.6 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
The debate can be ended artificially with ignorance, censorship and/or even violence - but the number of opponents of evolution is rather rising, than decreases with time. So I don't see any factual evidence for the end of debate about evolution, other than rising ignorance and religious character of science, which just becomes more categorical with time.

http://eclecticsa...tion.gif
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
For some people god is money, just as worse as other religionists, often the same kind of people.

Anyway its just a matter of time before the old religious farts die out and we can progress without having to bump over religionist douches.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (10) May 27, 2012
I wonder where did this Vendicar person get his "phoney Russian" lies. There is nobody in Phys.org who knows me. I believe he makes it up due to my antagonism toward his Socialist ideals and his pretending to live his life by old Communist maxim written by Karl Marx.
Well you are some sort of charicature that's pretty obvious. Enjoying yourself?
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2012
Anyway its just a matter of time before the old religious farts die out and we can progress without having to bump over religionist douches.
Again, this is rather blessed, i.e. religious wish, rather than reality. The increasing number of people is f*cking the science openly just because of ignorants separated from reality like you. After all, why the critically thinking people should switch their interest just to the science, when it's filled with religious arrogant ignorants in the same way, like the Holy Church of medieval era? What they could get from it? Your problem is, the scientists are payed with these people - not vice-versa: so that the arrogance is not the optimal strategy for scientists right now.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
I wonder what is the rate of creationists among young people? That can be effectively used to estimate future tendencies.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2012
The twenty years standing pool numbers speak clearly: the young skeptics are becoming believers later. And the young people aren't paying money, they're spending money instead. The scientists should always ask first for the opinion of creditworthy customers, who will be able/willing to buy their stuff.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
I dont see any clear trend in that poll. If anything, it seems to show very slight increase of people who believe in non-theist evolution, at the expense of present form creationism and god guided evolution.

Anyway, science is not a democracy. It does not matter what ordinary laymen want to believe for factual accuracy.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2012
Anyway, science is not a democracy. It does not matter what ordinary laymen want to believe for factual accuracy.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what the average scientists think about panspermia, steady state Universe or cold fusion as well. The evolution of science is based on gradual replacement of earlier errors with more relevant ideas. The people, who aren't capable to change their opinion in the light of the new facts will simply die out.
Craig_Harker
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2012
Evolution is fact. Anyone who has ever visited a mangrove swamp can see that
Musashi
5 / 5 (3) May 27, 2012
"(laughing) Who really prefers to be considered as descending from chimpanzees or gorillas?"

Could these ancestors breed with chimpazees or gorillas? If not, they wouldn't be chimpanzees or gorillas. Is this notion really that difficult to understand?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
I see that the pedophile terrorist has dropped by to tell some more lies concerning my heritage.
Vendicar_Decarian/Vendicar Dickarian/ScottNudds/ScottDouglas, et al is obviously far removed from sanity. It is no wonder that he is not allowed back into the United States. A very dangerous person who wishes to molest young children.
In fact this is the kind of crude vitriol we used to see from ritchieguy/pirouette. What, you think neurosis is entertaining ritchie? You think exposing yourself in public is a form of communication??
A2G
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
If God is true then He does not need to be defended and He will one day speak for Himself.

Those who deny He exists better hope you are right.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2012
If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God[/quote]

I admit there is change, but the nature and cause of the change is a different matter.

And by the way, the Bible does include several instances of obvious change in races of humans, reptiles, and cattle.

The story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil evidences a fundamental change in humans in terms of intelligence, innocence, and moral responsibility, and more importantly it evidences a change in human life cycle. Now whether you take it literally or metaphorically, it is a story about fundamental life cycle and conscience changes, unfortunately for the worse in most respects.
kaasinees
2.2 / 5 (10) May 27, 2012
If God is true then He does not need to be defended and He will one day speak for Himself.

Those who deny He exists better hope you are right.

Or he will kill me? Or better yet people who believe in him will kill me?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
The degree of self consciousness and moral conviction and guilt is one of the most fundamental differences between humans and animals, and in many respects may actually be more important to human life than intelligence itself.

So even as a metaphor it represents a change from a innocent, yet lower life form to something that is no longer perfectly innocent, but in fact is higher in some ways. The "Serpent" lied, but he did so with a bit of truth too, so to speak. Look at animals. most of them show no moral conviction, except maybe domesticated pets or primates that are around humans who train them and interact with them heavily.

In the wild, a buck pretty much jumps any doe that lets him, as is often running with 5 or 10 of them, and even on a farm there is one or two best bulls for breeding all the cows.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
Now I've seen documentary on different types of primates, forget which, but in some species the females control the group. They all mate with one alpha male,who may be the strongest or smartest, or may not be, and if he screws up and offends them, or accidentally hurts a baby, the females will gang up on him and kick him out, to the bottom of the pecking order, and pick another alpha male, even if he is otherwise inferior; mate with the new alpha two minutes later like there's no big deal too...

There is a social order, but it is nothing like what humans have, or at least it's definitely nothing like religious rules of social or sexual order, that's for sure.

The majority of animals are polygamous, especially primates, cattle, deer, and swine, except a few birds and a few other creatures.

A deer doesn't go up to a doe and debate within itself whether she's the right religion or whatever. The decision and consent to mate is made often within a few seconds, and that's that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
Look at animals. most of them show no moral conviction, except maybe domesticated pets or primates that are around humans who train them and interact with them heavily.
Animals can be expected to behave within their families and their bands, packs, and herds with the same sort of moral integrity as humans do; because this behavior has been selected for, and confers an evolutionary advantage.

Your people-hating religion only wants to own morality so it can condone the most beastly immorality against its enemies. As do they all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
Now I've seen documentary on different types of primates, forget which, but in some species the females control the group. They all mate with one alpha male,who may be the strongest or smartest, or may not be, and if he screws up and offends them, or accidentally hurts a baby, the females will gang up on him and kick him out, to the bottom of the pecking order
As usual you must be making this crap up as you never reference what you say.
There is a social order, but it is nothing like what humans have, or at least it's definitely nothing like religious rules of social or sexual order, that's for sure.
No the surviving religions are all configured to unnaturally maximize reproduction by forcing women to do nothing else but make and raise babies. This is why they still exist while others with less aggressive structures do not.

This is distinctly unnatural and immoral is it not QC?
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
If God is true then He does not need to be defended and He will one day speak for Himself.

Those who deny He exists better hope you are right.

Or he will kill me? Or better yet people who believe in him will kill me?


What you need to understand is that God does not hate you.

A2G is mostly right from my perspective.

I don't claim to have it all figured out, but trying to "defend" God as a matter of practice is not my responsibility, and is even very much arrogant.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God."

It's not about being perfect or even having perfect understanding. It's about love and faith.

Hypothetical question, since you are probably atheist or agnostic.

If God is real would you want to know him and understand him, eevn if you disagree with his will and wishes, at least try to meet him and understand?

We admit that we can't fully understand God, it even says so in the Bible and most other religious books, but we can try and we can grow.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2012
No the surviving religions are all configured to unnaturally maximize reproduction by forcing women to do nothing else but make and raise babies. This is why they still exist while others with less aggressive structures do not.


That's not true in protestantism at all, at least not within the denominations I have personal experience. Some which are considered cults, such as UPC and Mormonism may be like that in their most extreme factions.

A lot of protestants have just one or two children per woman now, and even much of the catholic laity is rebelling against their leaders because they are ridiculous. Nowhere in the Bible are individual couples commanded to maximize reproduction. In fact, if you were to take Paul's teaching of family responsibility literally , one should try to plan pregnancy due to responsibility of resources and raising children.

This is distinctly unnatural and immoral is it not QC?


Yes, it is, for those denominations who force that upon women.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2012
This is nonsense of a seemingly accommodationist Leaky. Religion has proved itself to be the problem for rejecting science, especially in US. Most other groups recognize that science is beneficial for them, but of course it threatens religionistas.

Especially bas since Coyne just published his peer reviewed paper on how religion is the problem, and how it is correlated with dysfunctional societies (low societal health and security). ["Science, religion, and society: the problem of evolution in America", Coyne, Evolution 2012.]

@ Russkiycremepuff:

Check up "Out Of Africa" theory in Wikipedia. Long story short: all humans evolved in Africa, groups emigrated on different times and in our case Moderns assimilated Neanderthals and Denisovans (at least).
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
And I will go further, Otto, in the Bible belt, there is so much focus on NOT being like that, that it often backfires and drives people's passions the wrong way.

I am a perfect example of a person who was repressed to the point of nearly being destroyed by the "no sex before marriage" and other similar things. There is so much pressure on avoiding sexual irresponsibilty for more and social reasons that it actually may be creating more moral and social problems that it solves. The church teaches 100% abstinence outside of marriage, which is realistically, functionally impossible in the modern world.

Ok, I've done it, if you don't count a few screwed up personal issues, but it has left me as a very much crushed and repressed person, which I agree is unnatural. I probably would have been better off otherwise.

At least people with premarital sex and even teen pregnancies often "fall forward," and recover well enough, which screwed up as it may be, is better than "falling backwards".
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
As usual you must be making this crap up as you never reference what you say.


Watch discovery channel more. I don't have the reference, I'm sorry, I don't keep videos or volumes, and even my memory is not good enough to remember the name of every episode or every species.

All I know is the behavior happened and they caught it on video.

The alpha male was screwing around and hurt one of the babies, and the females got pissed and kicked his ass all vs 1, and kicked him out and picked another, just like that. Then two minutes later they were mating with the new one, and went on like nothing happened.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
@ Whatwhat:

What are you on about? The very point of evolution as a process is that it combines determinism (selection) with stochasticity (variation and drift).

We can very well take the fully rational approach and find that gods are non-existent by testing (no magic, so no magickers).

While recognizing that structure formation in cosmology has deterministically gone from simplicity (quantum variation blown up by inflation) over complexity (stars, galaxies, chemical to biological evolution) and will go back to simplicity eventually (dilution of galaxy clusters by expansion under dark energy influence). No "randomness" was killed or born in that process, your magic word ("randomness"/"gods"/"poof") is entirely non-influential in what happened and will happen.

@ DavidW, Terriva, A2G, Lurker2358:

Creationists shouldn't comment on science. Go elsewhere with your inanities.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
We can very well take the fully rational approach and find that gods are non-existent by testing (no magic, so no magickers).


Explain this. Why do "Bird men" appear in so many cultures most ancient religions, even when the details don't agree exactly, as messengers between "God" and man? Angels in Israel and Babylon and Egypt, and even Greece. "Bird men" in Easter Island, which had absolutely no contact with Europe or the mid east or Egypt.

Why is there this concept of a winged humanoid intermediary between God and man present in so many civilizations which otherwise had no contact with one another?

If they are "fairy stories" then what are the odds that everyone made up basically the same fairy story? That's got to be about as low or lower than evolution's odds.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2012
On your thing about the end of the universe, you also are making a conjecture.

How can you know what entropy or Dark Energy will cause in the future when we really don't even know how to properly quantify or describe these things in an absolute, objective way. Well, we are a lot better with Entropy but Dark Energy is largely undescribed and undefined as far as quantification or formulas or models go.

For all we know, Dark Energy, whatever it is, might stop or reverse tomorrow, because we don't know what the fundamental law, formula, or other basis of this "force" actually is. If the formula is a negative parabola, it could reach a peak and then decrease and even go negative, for example. Nobody could possibly fit a curve to DE because the scale of change is so large and over such a ridiculous scale of space and time that it's impossible to even measure it objectively with enough precision to fit a hypothetical curve.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
Creationists shouldn't comment on science. Go elsewhere with your inanities.


Oh really?

Let's see what Dawkins, the agnostic hero, says about that.

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory. -Richard Dawkins


And let's see what "religion" says about that...

1 Tim. 6;20...avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science(gnosis) falsely so called:


Christianity is at it's core a search for the Truth and the "Logos," the Truth, "the rational principle which governs the universe," is God, according to John 1.

If physics is looking for a "rational principle which governs the universe," then you actually are looking for the same God as John described, even though you don't realize it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
That's not true in protestantism at all, at least not within the denominations I have personal experience.
You mean the dormant sects? The propensity exists within them all, to emerge at the Proper Time. This is what the OT is for.

"There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens...
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace."
Some which are considered cults, such as UPC and Mormonism may be like that in their most extreme factions.
And they think the same thing about whatever it is you believe. You are all capable of defending your faith 'with extreme prejudice'. And you have, and are, and will, somewhere on the globe at any given time.
All I know is the behavior happened and they caught it on video.
Sorry I suggest you learn to use google. And how to use a little patience.
Explain this. Why do "Bird men" appear in so many cultures most ancient religions
You are begging the question.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
1 Tim. 6;20...avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science(gnosis) falsely so called
Hmmm... lets see what exactly the author of 1 Timothy (whoever that might have been*) was referring to as 'knowledge'...

"6 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that Gods name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves." 1Tim

-Same chapter. This is the biblical essence of 'gnosis', of the 'logos' - jesus.

* "First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century."... more deception... not knowledge certainly. RELIGION.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (6) May 27, 2012
Otto:

You have to look at the context of the passage, because Paul did not support slavery. in fact, elsewhere he told slaves to find a way to be free if possible.

They were under Roman rule, and a third of the population was slaves to begin with, probably a higher ratio of slavery than any civilization that ever existed. Pre-abolition America only had a couple percent slavery, by comparison.

If Paul told every slave to rebel against their masters, it would accomplish nothing except getting them killed or starting a civil war.

1 Corinthians 7:21
Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

If there was a new convert who had formerly been a slave owner, it take a matter of conscience and personal sacrifice, as at the time, there would be no way for a business person to compete with another who was using slave labor, or at least it would be very hard. They must choose by conscience to make that sacrifice for the higher morals...
kevinrtrs
1.3 / 5 (16) May 27, 2012
Any hope for mankind's future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.

Quite a double speak in this sentence Mr Leaky. Let's assume you mean the evidence as it exists today - this means that soon the newer scientific discoveries will make it absolute.

As science progresses it it becoming clearer by the day just how impossible evolution really is. Here i'm talking about all life forms having descended from one organism.

Furthermore, evolutionists still haven't explained how life got here in the first place. Since most evolutionists are atheists, they have to rely on the big bang theory for the existence of everything, including life.

But the latest research is making it clear just how impossible it is for life to have started off all by itself.

[Darwinian] Evolutionary theory is dead in the water.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
The world was a very different place, and even Roman slavery, or Israeli slavery, was not always what American slavery had been. The "servants" often owned their own things, and had their own financial freedoms and obligations, which is even evidenced in one of Jesus' own parables.

I am NOT defending slavery. What I am saying is the context of the reality of financial and social life at that time in that part of the world is that one in three people was a slave, and employers made money on ultra-cheap labor, and yes at times, even forced labor, and that is how EVERYONE, or nearly everyone, operated.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (12) May 27, 2012
Here are some things where the creation story agrees with modern science in the gist, even if not in every detail.

CMB:
In the creation story "Light" was created before most matter, including stars, planets, the moon, and the Sun.

The First Flood (not Noah):
In the creation story, the Earth was once covered entirely by water, before the first continents formed. This agrees with physical and historical geology.

Dirt:
In the creation story, man and animals are made from dirt, by the voice of God for the animals, and by his bare hands for man. This agrees with chemistry and biology, since we are the exact same stuff as dirt and water, just in sorted, ordered portions and mechanisms.

Abiogenesis:
In the creation story, life sprang up at the command of God, but the exact details of how this happened are not given, except that the creatures were formed out of the ground (or the sea or air,) as a consequence of the commandment of God. The difference here is that it is guided intelligence
bigster
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2012
"...we are all African" Oh really? Then I guess there is no such thing as White privilege.
"...color is superficial" Hmmm. Then we must conclude that genocide is not possible. In an otherwise interesting article, Leakey can't resist tossing in the usual anti-White propaganda. Massive third-world immigration and forced integration is being demanded of EVERY White country and ONLY White countries, and according to international law it is genocide. Many who say they are anti-racist are really anti-White. Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-White.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
You have to look at the context of the passage, because Paul did not support slavery. in fact, elsewhere he told slaves to find a way to be free if possible.
I guess you missed the part where paul was not the author of the book claimed to be written by him?

It is clear you have no good grasp of what constitutes valid references. Using the bible as an example of what you call gnosis - knowledge - is not valid.

You are right - the slave passage certainly dates the book and this includes any 'gnosis' we might find therein. And the deceptive authorship further discredits it.
he world was a very different place, and even Roman slavery, or Israeli slavery
Ah - situational ethics. The hallmark of xianity or any religion for that matter. I would have thought that the eternal god of goodness would have decried slavery in any age, rather than trying to find a pragmatic way of accommodating it, and then relying on believers like you to try to explain it for him.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (12) May 27, 2012
Here are some things where the creation story agrees with modern science in the gist, even if not in every detail.
NONE of what you post agrees with the natural record. There are 2 creation stories in the bible and they are different in sequence and content.
In the creation story, the Earth was once covered entirely by water, before the first continents formed.
The earth was never entirely covered by water.
This agrees with chemistry and biology, since we are the exact same stuff as dirt and water
By your reasoning everything is made out of dirt and water.
In the creation story, life sprang up at the command of God, but the exact details of how this happened are not given
-And so it means nothing.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
NONE of what you post agrees with the natural record. There are 2 creation stories in the bible and they are different in sequence and content.


There is one creation story told in two different ways, the second focuses a bit more on humans, with the chronological order not being important.

The earth was never entirely covered by water.


"Ancient Earth was a water world".
http://www.newsci...rld.html

Not the reference I had in mind, but it's close enough to make my point.

I've seen other references that suggest it was in fact entirely covered by water.

When are you going to admit that I do not make this stuff up?

How many times have you challenged my integrity, only to have me prove it with a reference eventually?
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
Ah - situational ethics. The hallmark of xianity or any religion for that matter. I would have thought that the eternal god of goodness would have decried slavery in any age, rather than trying to find a pragmatic way of accommodating it, and then relying on believers like you to try to explain it for him.


Unbelievers don't adhere to many things agreed upon even by different religions.

Homosexuality? God declared that wrong, yet people do it anyway.

Why would you think slavery would be any different?

Your darn right ethics can be situational (while still absolute). Why sacrifice your life needlessly? There is quite a difference between Martyrdom and just being moronic.

That's not a contradiction. "If/Then/Else" is situational, but it is still absolute.
roboferret
3.9 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
God declared wearing mixed fibres a sin, but you do that anyway.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
The PhonyRuskie seems very interested in what unidentified bloggers posted about Vendicar Decarian decades ago.

"I see that the pedophile terrorist..." - PhonyRuskie

Do you have any evidence to backup your assertions? Or do they just hate filled accusations from Vendicar Decarian's long destroyed enemies?
- pedophile terrorist Vendicar_Decarian/Scott Nudds, etc.

I see that the pedophile is still doubting my ancestry. However, it is evident that he has no proof of it, otherwise he would have already posted all of his evidence on Phys.org. I await his proof.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
V.D. has the police record that proves his criminal activities, and it is obvious that many have already looked into his history and background.
Many of the accusations are quite recent and are believable. He was saying the same things in those websites as he does in Phys.org.

He recognizes my antagonism to socialist values, which are the proof that people like him are the socialist useful idiots that are so popular in America and Europe, values that have destroyed countries financially. Therefore, this disgusting pedophile chooses to attack the person who brings out the evils of the system he believes in.
He thinks I cannot be Russian, but he does not provide any alternative ancestry. He is very delusional, which is no surprise in a criminal mind. Where is his proof of my ancestry? He has none and never will. Give me your proof, V.D. and we shall see who is the liar.
A2G
1.6 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
Kasinees wrote:

"Or he will kill me? Or better yet people who believe in him will kill me?"

Not my belief at all. You believe that when you die you die. That's it for you. What you believe is what you get in this case is what I believe. God would not benefit from killing someone is who already dead and that is silly thinking.

You get your wish Kasinees. You die. God doesn't kill you.

And so Leaky also gets his wish. He dies with no knowledge of God.

No torment. Just eternally dead.

I wish you the best is your journey for truth.

BTW I do not go to church and will have nothing to do with any of them as I do not believe them to be about the real truth.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (9) May 27, 2012
Here are some things where the creation story agrees with modern science in the gist, even if not in every detail.
CMB:
In the creation story "Light" was created before most matter, including stars, planets, the moon, and the Sun.

Then later:
There is one creation story told in two different ways, the second focuses a bit more on humans, with the chronological order not being important.


It looks like the chronological order is not to be claimed as important, unless the story conveniently matches reality. Then we'll claim it as valid.

You could pretty much try that logic with any mythology book. If it doesn't fit.., well, not important. If by chance it does - then, "See, my [insert god, book of choice, favorite psychic, tarot card] predicted it!"

Understand what you did here and you might start to understand why convenience-based fact-fitting is just plain bogus. My "Comprehensive World Religions" class in my advanced H.S. curriculum clued me into this years ago.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
Evidence will never matter. People committed to a belief system have no reason to intentionally take a chance to learn they could be wrong. There is no incentive to leave your comfort zone. They don't see any personal value in looking at evidence they don't intend to believe in. It would force an unwanted discomfort on them which they can see no reason for.

I, myself, do not want to maintain misleading concepts just because I refused to consider other possible fact-based ideas. I learned to embrace change in the face of better information, even when it meant dismissing what I was once sure of.

Trying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding, while submitting to the convenience of self-deception, is a personally detrimental folly.
Terriva
3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2012
Evolution debate will soon be history
Apparently not here, at PhysOrg... Although most of posts are OT, as usually.
flashgordon
2.5 / 5 (4) May 27, 2012
Religion again!!! It is not religion that is an obstacle in the way of science, it is the Clergy who are afraid for their salary and retirement. Every time research hits the old scriptures beliefs the Clergy spring up to defend God. What would God do without them? He has needs!!! He needs humans!!! To defend him. I believe there is also a parallel evolution backward: when the young generation unable to READ, follows the Old Scriptures. Unless those who want to include Dinosaurs in Noah's Ark shut up, the evolution is backward.


I'd like to say more; but, I've come into this discussion late. Maybe I will say something.
flashgordon
3.9 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
"Believe, and you will believe" "God works in mysterious ways" These are the core thoughts of the anti-science supernatural religious; all mental tricks. If you show that you can find all the facts and logic against the Bible(concerning the christian religion), then, they just quote 1corinthians1 at you(which says among things, greek wisdom is folly; and Paul's christianity is superior somehow to Judaism and Greek philosophy, so damn them to hell).
Russkiycremepuff
1.2 / 5 (6) May 27, 2012
I wonder where did this Vendicar person get his "phoney Russian" lies. There is nobody in Phys.org who knows me. I believe he makes it up due to my antagonism toward his Socialist ideals and his pretending to live his life by old Communist maxim written by Karl Marx.
Well you are some sort of charicature that's pretty obvious. Enjoying yourself?
- GhostofOtoo -

Immensely. But I enjoy being myself so much more. So which part of me do you not like? Or do like? My life is open book to my friends. I suppose I will never have friends like that on this website, and I am not sad about it. I enjoy the articles and making my opinions known. I see many trolls and cranks enter into threads and spout the nonsense. It is not my problem, but I prefer to talk to those who are truy interested in topic, and not just to see their words in print.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (7) May 27, 2012
Perhaps it is my Russian ancestry and my belief in Communism that upsets you and V.D.? I do not change to suit those who are unhappy people. None of you are my concern.
To describe me as caricature is unfounded opinion. But you are free to think what you wish. I am not going to copy my passport to show it to the pedophile who threatened Bush; that would be absurd.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
"(laughing) Who really prefers to be considered as descending from chimpanzees or gorillas?"

Could these ancestors breed with chimpazees or gorillas? If not, they wouldn't be chimpanzees or gorillas. Is this notion really that difficult to understand?
- Musashi -

I do not know with whom my ancestors of millions of years ago mated. Possibly Neanderthalis (I hope so). While I am aware of my Slav and Swedish bloodline, I could also have some Mongol since there were many invasions. It has nothing to do with evolution, of course, but it is the genetic pool that is of most importance to me.
You seem to misunderstand my meaning. I meant the chimpanzee and gorilla as a joke.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
Now I've seen documentary on different types of primates, forget which, but in some species the females control the group. They all mate with one alpha male,who may be the strongest or smartest, or may not be, and if he screws up and offends them, or accidentally hurts a baby, the females will gang up on him and kick him out, to the bottom of the pecking order
As usual you must be making this crap up as you never reference what you say.
There is a social order, but it is nothing like what humans have, or at least it's definitely nothing like religious rules of social or sexual order, that's for sure.
No the surviving religions are all configured to unnaturally maximize reproduction by forcing women to do nothing else but make and raise babies. This is why they still exist while others with less aggressive structures do not.

This is distinctly unnatural and immoral is it not QC?
- Otto -
What coincidence that you say this. Socialism promotes such making babies.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2012
@Otto -
I am not this Richie person you seek. You must miss him very much. But if you continue to call me by that name, I will have to form the opinion that you are also delusional as much as V.D.
Here are some links regarding V.D. There are many more.
from: http://energy.edu...337.html
March 2007 Page 90 in which Vendicar_Decarian threatens the life of George W, Bush, whom he calls "Bushie". I was going to search police and arrest records regarding the pedophile Vendicar_Decarian and his aliases, but it would cost money, so I will hold off for now.

http://www.mombu....311.html
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2012
God declared wearing mixed fibres a sin, but you do that anyway.
- roboferret -

I am not absolutely certain, but in the ancient times, there would be danger of contracting some diseases from animal skins, where one fibre might be safe to use, but weaving it with some other may have introduced anthrax to the person wearing such clothing. I am not physician, so do not believe this without research, please.
verkle
1 / 5 (8) May 27, 2012
"Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history"

What I am absolutely certain of is that such high-headed, arrogant, self-centered scientists will soon be history.

kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (11) May 28, 2012
There is no debate on evolution. Evolution is a fact.

If you're talking about evolution as the process through which all current life forms descended from one single ancestor then evolution is very much in dispute. It remains with those who make the assertion to show that it is indeed possible for such "evolution" to happen. To date, this has not been demonstrated and indeed just by the definition[or non-definition as it really is], it hasn't been observed. Therefore it falls outside of the realm of science as we practise it currently.

If you want to say that evolution is more concerned with the actual physically observed adaptations then you might have a point because that is simply existing information being changed in a mostly downward, less useful direction.

What happens in real life though is that evolutionists like to quote the latter and then with sleight of hand imply the former without bringing convincing support for the extrapolation.
The first Evolution is a myth
Whatwhat
1 / 5 (3) May 28, 2012
@ Whatwhat:

What are you on about? The very point of evolution as a process is that it combines determinism (selection) with stochasticity (variation and drift).

We can very well take the fully rational approach and find that gods are non-existent by testing (no magic, so no magickers).

While recognizing that structure formation in cosmology has deterministically gone from simplicity (quantum variation blown up by inflation) over complexity (stars, galaxies, chemical to biological evolution) and will go back to simplicity eventually ...


"stochasticity (variation and drift)" Nice words for randomness. Also since I do not reject science and never mentioned God(s), a meaningless and loaded term, you are not telling me anything. I will admit I am not so narrow minded that I am unwilling to explore possibilities outside the little box you appear to have created and I am also not so arrogant as to claim any certainty. How about you? Or do you have everything figured out?
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2012
I am absolutely certain of is that such high-headed, arrogant, self-centered scientists will soon be history.
The scientists are just average sample of common people (if we neglect the fact, the formally thinking freaks often recruit just from high-headed and self-centered individuals). So I don't see any selection mechanism, which could lead into fast extinction of these people. It's the same religious Utopia, like the idea of communism with people willingly working for free, Laissez-faire economy driven with honest people without cheating or the assumption, that people will admit evolutionary theory without further discussion. Each Utopianism is dangerous, because it's separated from reality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) May 28, 2012
There is one creation story told in two different ways, the second focuses a bit more on humans, with the chronological order not being important.
WHO SAYS it's not important? OF COURSE it's important. The 2 disagree. In order for you to accept it you have to declare it unimportant.
I've seen other references that suggest it was in fact entirely covered by water.
I see you've given a ref which requires a subscription while there are others which don't, which tell us that least 2% was left high and dry. You didn't like those refs QC?
There is quite a difference between Martyrdom and just being moronic.
Dying for your god or any god is always moronic. And immoral. But your gods all demand it in your books.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
Homosexuality? God declared that wrong, yet people do it anyway.
I don't recall god telling gays how to properly conduct themselves like he does slaves. The only reason your gods universally condemn non-procreative sex is BECAUSE growing the flock and replacing battle losses as fast as possible is THE MOST important aspect of their dogma. Forced reproduction as a form of aggression is patently immoral.

Your god would not survive if everyone who believed in him were dead. The more virulent religions extincted all those who could not keep up.
but weaving it with some other may have introduced anthrax to the person wearing such clothing. I am not physician, so do not believe this without research, please.
Anthrax.

Ritchie you are a lying, flooding imbecile no matter what you call yourself. You invariably end up spending most of your time here flaming all the people who rightfully choose to point this out to you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2012
Your darn right ethics can be situational (while still absolute). Why sacrifice your life needlessly? There is quite a difference between Martyrdom and just being moronic.
So this is the kind of thing QC/lurker condones:

"BEIJING Two men set fire to themselves Sunday outside the holiest temple of Tibetan Buddhism in the center of Lhasa...The self-immolations took place outside the Jokhang Temple, during the holy month known as Saga Dawa, when followers of Tibetan Buddhism celebrate the birth, enlightenment and death of Buddha."

"SANAA, Yemen (AP) A suicide bomber blew himself up at a military parade rehearsal Monday in Yemens capital, killing 96 soldiers in one of the deadliest attacks in the city in years, officials said. Al-Qaidas Yemen branch claimed responsibility for the attack."
Russkiycremepuff
1.7 / 5 (6) May 28, 2012
@Otto
I see that you cannot let go of this Richie and that you will continue to insist that I am he. There are about four possibilities that would describe your vexation and transference of the Richie persona to me.

1) You are seeking revenge of this man for some perceived wrong done to you.
2) You are very delusional and/or insane.
3) You are latent homosexual who seeks out this Richie to establish sexual relationship.
4) You cast aspersions to, and accuse anyone who aggressively posits an opinion that is different from your own. Your straw man continues to flood the threads and veers away from the topic.
You also have no toleration for new people unless they are trolls and cranks or pedophiles who are of no threat to you.
I will say these things in every thread where you spew your lies regarding my identity. There were only three people who were calling me "Richie" on this website and I believe all of you to be insane.
1) GhostofOtto1923
2) CardacianNeverid
3) Vendicar_Decarian
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2012
3) You are latent homosexual who seeks out this Richie to establish sexual relationship.
Typical ritchieguy slop. Isnt it?
You also have no toleration for new people
I have no toleration for lying flooding dumbasses who think they see glass-headed martians in NASA photos they dont know how to read, or who think metal boomerangs can be cast in wax molds, or who think that pretending to be a russian is anything but pathetic, or who think their worthless opinions have to be posted in 20 posts a thread.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2012
God declared wearing mixed fibres a sin, but you do that anyway.
- roboferret -

As i have said before and then was countered by the unknowledgeable Otto , the Bible (in so many words) commands to not use 2 fibres together due to possibility of becoming infected with anthrax. Cotton fibre is safe.
http://www.ajol.i...840/1840

"Anthrax is a very ancient disease caused by infection with a spore forming gram positive organisms, Bacillus anthracis. It has been found in domestic animals and humans for thousands of years. Historical accounts of the disease are found in Greek, Roman, Hebrew and Hindu records. Earlier outbreaks of human anthrax occurred in Rome and were attributed to consumption of contaminated meat and use of hides and hair of such animals. The exodus of Egyptian cattle described in the Holy Bible is thought to be due to anthrax."

Consumption of contaminated meat and USE OF HIDES AND HAIR of such animals. Seems to agree with me.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2012
I see that out of the four possibilities, TheGhostofOddo has chosen #3 as most closely reflecting his personal reasons for searching everywhere for this Richie person. He could have chosen any of the other three, but that one must be hitting his nerve.
I find it amusing to read his insane and delusional accusations of glass headed martians and metal boomerangs in wax molds. As far as I know, only gold can be cast in such a way, and I have no such knowledge of martians with glass heads. I also have no such knowledge of pictures of Mars except for the Rover pictures which I do not bother to collect.
It is evident that Oddo has dire need of good psychiatric help, and the same for his comrades in this website. Perhaps I should call him the Ottotard, since that seems to portray him accurately.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2012
Consumption of contaminated meat and USE OF HIDES AND HAIR of such animals. Seems to agree with me.
Huh. Wow. So what does that have to do with mixing fibers?
metal boomerangs in wax molds. As far as I know, only gold can be cast in such a way
Yes of course. Only gold can be cast in wax molds. You dumbass.
twik
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2012
we are all Africans of which i tend to agree with Mr Leakey and the future isn,t too bright considering the way we treat our planet.
LariAnn
1.4 / 5 (10) May 29, 2012
The ability of existing organisms to adapt and change as their environment changes represents an observable and testable fact; if this is what people are referring to when they use the word "evolution", then they are discussing a fact which is undeniable. However, one organism changing into a totally different organism, or life arising from lifelessness spontaneously and randomly (aka spontaneous generation) are not observable or testable in any way. Merely looking at fossils and speculating what might have happened millions of years ago (what I call speculative evolution) is not the same as being able to observe and test. IMHO, the problem with speculative evolution is that people are let to BELIEVE that it is fact, which it is not. It is no more fact than any speculative fiction (aka science fiction). So when it comes to science, the ego should take a back seat to "I don't know" as an answer to a question begging for nonexistent facts.
Mala_Mucika
1 / 5 (7) May 29, 2012
"Extinction is always driven by environmental change. "

and did you notice that evolution never learns?
Mala_Mucika
1 / 5 (7) May 29, 2012
i mean i say this because i sawth there are plenty of alien spaceships on the moon
Mala_Mucika
1 / 5 (7) May 29, 2012
so you are claiming that not a single part of the body is not intelligently connected to the outer space of the body?
Mala_Mucika
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
so you think no? lol so you think what you define as "life" was not defined in any intelligence in the begging of the universe either be big bang or whatever?
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) May 29, 2012
What the hell? Why does this website attract so many weirdos?
Deathclock
3 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
LariAnn, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Evolution is evolution, it doesn't matter if you are talking about changes from one generation to the next that we can observe or the accumulation of those changes across millions of generations which we cannot observe for obvious reasons... they are the EXACT SAME THING. If you understood evolution at all you would understand the processes involved in either of these cases that you are talking about are exactly the same, there is no difference there.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (8) May 30, 2012
Why does no one try to take a semi rational approach to what we call "religion"? It is either anthropomorphic with all awareness shaped in the image of man or else everything is completely dead and randomness magically becomes order. The only philosophy I have seen come even close to a middle path is Spinoza. I believe Spinoza and Einstein were on the right path and for some reason we skipped of the tracks into some Hegelian dialectical nightmare.


It's called Pantheism and it has been around for hundreds of years... also Deism would fit your description as well.


You may interpret it as Pantheism, I don't.


That's because you're an idiot.
Mala_Mucika
1 / 5 (4) May 30, 2012
What the hell? Why does this website attract so many weirdos?


i posed a normal scientific question what is weird about it? as for the alien spaceships on the moon if you dont believe it nor see it its your problem no weirdness there baby
roboferret
4 / 5 (4) May 30, 2012
One word: Pareidolia.
Mala_Mucika
1 / 5 (4) May 31, 2012
evolved slave ape in forced demarihuanized waste working and successfully evoluted suicide
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2012
evolved slave ape in forced demarihuanized waste working and successfully evoluted suicide

What the hell? Why does this website attract so many weirdos?

@Deathclock: I think the latest post by Mala Muc might be a clue that you got it wrong. It's not "weirdos", its "wEEdos". Judging by the level of coherence, I would estimate that it would take an awful lot of 'forcing' to demarihuanise THAT person's waste. (I wonder if they are up to the pizza stage yet...) Cheers, DH66
adwarakanath
5 / 5 (4) May 31, 2012
Oh for goodness sakes, can Physorg not remove all the religious trolls and just create space for a good scientific discussion? This just ruins anything meaningful that might happen.

Really, religious nuts, believe what you will. Science doesn't care about what you believe. Just keep your religion in your Churches and we'll keep our Science in our Universities and labs. Is that too much to ask for?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) May 31, 2012
Really, religious nuts, believe what you will. Science doesn't care about what you believe. Just keep your religion in your Churches and we'll keep our Science in our Universities and labs. Is that too much to ask for?
Science DOES care because scientists can see the quantitative effects that religion has on rational thinking, population overgrowth and the resulting instability, and religionist efforts to reduce freedom for both individuals and the scientific community.

Science is understandably very concerned. Like this guy:
http://www.youtub...tC09GAZk
Mala_Mucika
1 / 5 (4) May 31, 2012
what kind of religion are you talking about babies, i asked a simple scientific question: DO YOU THINK MATTER OR BODY THAT YOU CONSIDER AS LIFE POSSES ANY INTELLIGENT RELATION OR CORRELATION WITH ITS OUTER SPACE? YES OR NO? this is a normal scientific question wtf is wrong you
adwarakanath
5 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2012
what kind of religion are you talking about babies, i asked a simple scientific question: DO YOU THINK MATTER OR BODY THAT YOU CONSIDER AS LIFE POSSES ANY INTELLIGENT RELATION OR CORRELATION WITH ITS OUTER SPACE? YES OR NO? this is a normal scientific question wtf is wrong you


What sort of a question is that? Please go look up Wikipedia on "A well-posed problem/question"

Geeeeesh. You make me bleed tears. Really.
Mala_Mucika
1 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2012
so you call yourself a scientist and you dont understand my question?
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2012
what kind of religion are you talking about babies, i asked a simple scientific question: DO YOU THINK MATTER OR BODY THAT YOU CONSIDER AS LIFE POSSES ANY INTELLIGENT RELATION OR CORRELATION WITH ITS OUTER SPACE? YES OR NO? this is a normal scientific question wtf is wrong you


I understand your question, and I will reform it so that it is stated in proper English:

"Does the matter which makes up a living entity possess any intelligent understanding of matter external to that living entity?"

The answer is obviously no, since matter in and of itself (whether it belongs to a living entity or not) is not intelligent, so it cannot possess an intelligent understanding of anything.

If you can read the question you posed without realizing how terribly it is phrased then you require further study in the English language.

If you think the question you asked is "scientific" in any way then you require further study in the philosophy of science.
adwarakanath
5 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2012
Thanks Deathclock.

Man seriously, you spend a lot of time trying to explain basic concepts to religious nuts and trolls who have no the faintest idea of what science really is. Your efforts are truly appreciated. But in the interest of your own sanity; please don't continue. They do not see reason. They don't want to. As Paine said, something something administering medicine to the dead, something something.

Leave them be. Ridicule them. Vote against politicians who seek to undermine science and progress.
george_wells_547
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2012
Why tolerate it?

Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everybody
Annihilation by Assimilation

Every white country on earth is supposed to become multicultural and multiracial. EVERY white country is expected to end its own race and end its own culture. No one asks that of ANY non-white country.

The Netherlands is as crowded as Japan, Belgium is as crowded as Taiwan, yet no one says Japan or Taiwan will solve the RACE problem by letting millions of third-worlders invade, mate and date with them.

The final solution to the RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to bring in the third world and assimilate with them.

Immigration, tolerance, and especially assimilation are being used against the white race.

All this immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries.

Anti-white is called anti-racist, which leads to the disappearance of one race only, the white race. The real aim of anti-racism is to wipe
Whatwhat
1 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2012
Why does no one try to take a semi rational approach to what we call "religion"? It is either anthropomorphic with all awareness shaped in the image of man or else everything is completely dead and randomness magically becomes order. The only philosophy I have seen come even close to a middle path is Spinoza. I believe Spinoza and Einstein were on the right path and for some reason we skipped of the tracks into some Hegelian dialectical nightmare.


It's called Pantheism and it has been around for hundreds of years... also Deism would fit your description as well.


You may interpret it as Pantheism, I don't.


That's because you're an idiot.


Me and Einstein I guess. You must be an absolute frigging genius. Try looking up Panentheism, maybe, just maybe, you will actually learn something. Very doubtful would be my guess though, since you already appear to think that you are some kind of God.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2012
There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God.

Maybe, it's because there just isn't any that ever occurred, Mr Leaky?

Perhaps you are seeing [read inferring] change where there never was any to start off with. Definitely not the kind of change you'd REALLY like to see - such as dinosaurs turning into birds step by step. Or horses developing fins to go back into the sea - step by step. All you can see is complete whales or horses or dinosaurs or birds - but nothing in between.

The real in-betweeners still have to lie down and reveal themselves - so to speak, not just in cladograms drawn by ardent and over-optimistic researchers.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2012
Me and Einstein I guess. You must be an absolute frigging genius. Try looking up Panentheism, maybe, just maybe, you will actually learn something. Very doubtful would be my guess though, since you already appear to think that you are some kind of God.


First of all, you said "Try looking up Panentheism", but I didn't say anything about panentheism, I was talking about pantheism... try some reading comprehension.

Secondly:
http://en.wikiped...antheism

"Baruch Spinoza's Ethics, finished in 1675, was the major source from which pantheism spread"

Spinoza was a Pantheist... So you're wrong. You're welcome for the free education.
Whatwhat
1 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2012
Spinoza was a Pantheist...


Debatable, based on how one understands and then interprets his philosophy. ie; My prior comment about interpretation. Spinoza even stated that he does not subscribe to pantheism. Who would know better than him? You? Since "substance" does not exist in the physical universe, and that is the most fundamental aspect of his philosophy, but everything arises from "substance", it makes no sense to say his philosophy is pantheistic.
If one takes a step back it can also be argued that there are similarities between Spinoza's philosophy and the modern "big bang" theory that are surprising, unless his philosophy actually influenced that direction, since in Spinoza's time a "big bang" would have been unimaginable. Spinoza also came to the conclusion everything was composed of waves based on his philosophy, an amazing idea to find in the 17th century. Spinoza can also be argued to be one of the grandfather's of modern rationalism.