Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004
RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA
January 2006

AUG 09, 2007 08:36 AM

We also would have accepted, "Suck it, Trebek!"

OneWithAll

OneWithAll

Charlton City, MA
October 2005

AUG 09, 2007 08:37 AM

gladly biggrin

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

AUG 09, 2007 09:28 AM


. . . Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.



With a name like that, who's surprised ?

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

AUG 09, 2007 09:58 AM

The Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said.


How is this news?

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

AUG 09, 2007 10:03 AM

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."


BURN!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
It just occurred to me that "burn!" is probably what a puritanical evolution-denier might say, but with a completely different meaning.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

AUG 09, 2007 11:34 AM

bean said:

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."


BURN!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
It just occurred to me that "burn!" is probably what a puritanical evolution-denier might say, but with a completely different meaning.



HEATHEN!

"We have a witch, may we burn her?"

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

AUG 09, 2007 11:36 AM

But seriously, I can't wait to hear all the young-earth creation freaks come here and say that this discovery discredits evolution, despite the fact that it's simply a revision of current accepted human evolution.

That'll be awesome.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

AUG 09, 2007 03:37 PM

fountainofdreams said:
But seriously, I can't wait to hear all the young-earth creation freaks come here and say that this discovery discredits evolution, despite the fact that it's simply a revision of current accepted human evolution.

That'll be awesome.



They will, eventually, learn that expressing their opinion in public only gets them laughed at.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

AUG 09, 2007 03:59 PM

This isn't actually surprising to anyone, is it? We already know that neanderthals and cro-magnon man coexisted, for example.

(P.S. I'm not overlooking the humor in Subrosa's post, I'm just hoping that the general population is more intelligent and well-informed than I fear.)

sick

sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

AUG 09, 2007 04:33 PM

fountainofdreams said:
But seriously, I can't wait to hear all the young-earth creation freaks come here and say that this discovery discredits evolution, despite the fact that it's simply a revision of current accepted human evolution.

That'll be awesome.



Don't worry. They have an amazing lack of understanding of scientific method and it's implications, including the idea that revising a theory to fit new data does not mean the entire theory is wrong.

No doubt this will also cause them to rekindle their nonsense about evolution being contested within the scientific community. They can't seem to grasp that the basic principle isn't debated, only the exact way in which it occurs.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

AUG 09, 2007 05:36 PM

fountainofdreams said:
But seriously, I can't wait to hear all the young-earth creation freaks come here and say that this discovery discredits evolution, despite the fact that it's simply a revision of current accepted human evolution.

That'll be awesome.



This isn't big news. I learned in freshman bio that multiple members of the genus homo existed together, and that was over four years ago now. Some of those other cats looked freeeeaky.

ckdexterhaven

ckdexterhaven

USA
December 2005

AUG 09, 2007 05:39 PM

cats and dogs living together? mass hysteria?

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

AUG 09, 2007 05:43 PM

TheRedBaron said:

fountainofdreams said:
But seriously, I can't wait to hear all the young-earth creation freaks come here and say that this discovery discredits evolution, despite the fact that it's simply a revision of current accepted human evolution.

That'll be awesome.



This isn't big news. I learned in freshman bio that multiple members of the genus homo existed together, and that was over four years ago now. Some of those other cats looked freeeeaky.



That doesn't preclude people going crazy about something.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

AUG 09, 2007 05:57 PM

SockPuppet said:

fountainofdreams said:
But seriously, I can't wait to hear all the young-earth creation freaks come here and say that this discovery discredits evolution, despite the fact that it's simply a revision of current accepted human evolution.

That'll be awesome.



They will, eventually, learn that expressing their opinion in public only gets them laughed at.



I'm not so optimistic. They've (especially people like Focus on the Family) been expressing their opinion in public for years. People actually agree with them. *shiver*

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

AUG 09, 2007 06:06 PM

bean said:

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."




I was really, really happy to see that in the article. The knuckle dragging fundies have become so rabid about inserting their politics into everything, that it was nice to see a scientist pre-emptively counter that by putting the discovery in the broader social context. This kind of thing is completely mundane in science - that is, new discoveries challenging existing theories and paving the way to more updated, refined theories - yet only sparks media controversy when one of the make believe pet theories of the religious right is involved. No one would bat an eyelash if the discovery had been in any other field, and it's more important than ever that the public understands how science works.

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

AUG 09, 2007 06:35 PM

s5 said:

bean said:

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."




I was really, really happy to see that in the article. The knuckle dragging fundies have become so rabid about inserting their politics into everything, that it was nice to see a scientist pre-emptively counter that by putting the discovery in the broader social context. This kind of thing is completely mundane in science - that is, new discoveries challenging existing theories and paving the way to more updated, refined theories - yet only sparks media controversy when one of the make believe pet theories of the religious right is involved. No one would bat an eyelash if the discovery had been in any other field, and it's more important than ever that the public understands how science works.



You're assuming The nutters would read that far into the article before going off the deep end.

Science scary, Pat Robertson good tongue

Oooo... Fire hot, tree pretty! biggrin

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

AUG 09, 2007 07:04 PM

Whatever you do, do not mention punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism when trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

AUG 09, 2007 08:08 PM

joker_ said:
Whatever you do, do not mention punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism when trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.



And if you bring up drug-resistant tuberculosis, you bear the burden of cleaning up their brains and skull fragments.

sick

sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

AUG 09, 2007 08:23 PM

joker_ said:
Whatever you do, do not mention punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism when trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.



I've made that mistake, and been treated to a rant about how when phyletic gradualism couldn't explain everything, the evil evolutionists came up with punctuated equilibrium to better fit the facts, and therefore the entire theory of evolution must be wrong.

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

AUG 09, 2007 08:28 PM

CKDexterHaven said:
cats and dogs living together? mass hysteria?



No, that's what happens if teh gays get married.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

AUG 09, 2007 08:42 PM

Formus said:

joker_ said:
Whatever you do, do not mention punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism when trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.



And if you bring up drug-resistant tuberculosis, you bear the burden of cleaning up their brains and skull fragments.



I'm sorry, but haven't you heard? Microevolution doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs.

Try again, pagan scum. The only logical conclusion is that God exists and He created us in His image.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

AUG 09, 2007 11:49 PM

shocked Er... Don't you mean man created God in his image? (Ach! Zee sarcasm detector is on the fritz! Ist kaput!)

Paleontologists abandoned the old linear ape to man image long ago, this really is nothing new. It simply shows how varied the hominid "tree" was during our prehistory and that species coexisted during the same time (you know, like zebras and horses, bees and wasps, chimpanzees and gorillas, etc.). This doesn't mean that evolution doesn't occur (who's jumping to that conclusion based on this story anyways???), this finding is merely improving our understanding of different species' existence within a clearer timeline.

The whole concept of creationism is archaic propaganda designed to dull the intellect and bring self-righteous dignification to those who feel their faith is under attack by truth. Unfortunately, way too many people are comfortable being tucked deep within their caves, fearing the shadows on the wall to give a shit. But go on ahead... Fear the shadows, be a slave to myth. It's your prerogative to believe whatever the hell you want, just try not to blow your smoke in everyone else's faces.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

AUG 10, 2007 12:12 AM

Here's a candle to help light your way in case you wish to find your way out of the cave...
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

saltonsea

saltonsea

Toronto, ON
July 2004

AUG 10, 2007 12:55 AM


i still think we all came from a coconut tree....

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next