What is Digg?238 Comments
- disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6To the authors credit, it only said "evidence supporting" rather than proving. But, to the points you've made:
(1) I'm not sure how it matters who harvested them, they certainly weren't created by man. It's a result of nature.
(2) That doesn't change the fact that they should not really be capable of doing what they're doing (if you pulled a wad of living tissue from under your own skin and gave it a suitable environment in which to live, it would eventually die). - benhocking, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Although I like the article, I think they're overstating its importance to "proving" evolution. (1) These cells were harvested by men, not by nature. (2) As far as I can tell, these cells wouldn't survive in nature without being fed, etc., by humans. If all of the other pieces of evidence don't convince evolution-deniers, I strongly doubt this will make even a minor dent in their armor.
- DCash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Google Cache:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:mpaAUbZYeqEJ:www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html%3Fnode%3D1860+&hl=en - falloutsyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4evolution has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, it has to do with the ability to change on its own. Evidence supporting, yes. Evidence proving? no. Great story though. Very digg worthy. +DUGG
- mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Plain and simple to all those who think this or anything "proves" evolution...look at your car, house, computer, IPod, whatever. None of that stuff just popped into existance. None of that stuff evolved into what it is now. These things all pale in comparison to the universe, the exact workings of it, the planets, and you and I. There is obviously an intelligence that designed and built everything in the universe. All the fanboys of both Microsoft and Apple are so willing to praise them and the things they created, yet they spit in God's face. Geez!"
NEWSFLASH! None of that stuff is alive. You can't begin to compare the two in that analogy for that mere fact. iPods don't have little tiny iPods. If you have in your possesion any of those items and they do have offspring I stand corrected. Whatsmore I wouldn't mind a litter of black iPod Nanos.
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." -Richard Dawkins - t3rmin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So what we have here is a mutation that not only killed its host, but produced a VASTLY inferior life form (basically human -> amoeba). And you interpret this as _supporting_ evolution? I'd say this is more likely proof for the "other side", which says that life does not increase in complexity, and mutations are generally harmful...
And I do think it's a very important point that we are keeping this stuff alive in a sheltered environment with ample food and perfect conditions. The human body survives for 70+ years in the real world. This is a regression, not a progression. - pplant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For those who debate against evolution there is a belief of the static nature of organisms. You really can't argue against evolution without the mindset that we are static beings, created from God's image... etc.
What this article shows is actual human DNA being effected by a mechanism of evolution. That does not mean that the new organism is an improvement over the ancestral DNA. That mechanism is Natural Selection. Natural selection with morphological processes (like the change here)both work together to create newer better, faster, descendants.
Remember it is not up to us humans to judge whether something has evolved to be better than their parents or ancestors, that will be determined IF an organism can thrive within its environment, in addition that organism must also adapt itself in the future to any new environments. If it cannot, then Natural selection takes over, if processes exist within the organism that allow for it to adapt, it will then survive. This article is just pointing out a possible process whereby an organism may internally change itself without mutation, in this case viral DNA interaction. - TimmyK., on 10/12/2007, -2/+4>>>posted by tryferos "I think some of you are missing the point. These things had a designer and creator. You are actually putting yourselves down since very intelligent people designed and created the wonderful technology of today, yet they came about by means of space dust or apes."
Who's to say that Gods way of creating the planets wasn't billions of years of gathering space dust coming together via gravitational forces? I mean he is infinite isn't he? Somebody who has always existed, and always will exist must have a pretty different sense of time than you do, wouldn't you say? So to him billions of years is probably nothing. It's insulting of your God for you to discount the incredible amazing thing that is the formation of a solar system, and the evolution of an intelligent species from less intelligent ones. To God the evolution of the human race might be a blink of his infinite life, while to us lowly mortals it seems as if it was a long drawn out process. Here is my question to you. If you believe that God is so great and amazing that he can do anything in anyway at anytime, then how disrespectful is it of you to assume that you could ever know what he can do, or how he could do it? Us Agnostics see it that way. It is pointless to act like we know what is really happening in the universe, because there is no way that we will ever understand it all. And if there really is an intelligence controlling it all then it is so far beyond what we are even capable of imagining that we will never know what it is. If you had any respect for the majesty of the planets and stars or the universe in general you would probably think that way as well. - Turminator999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As far as i am concerned the evolution versus creationism debate is useless. what has been, has been, what exists, exists, and what will be, will be.
- lampy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Also I think, It's best for Christians to mix with the aTHEISTS types, because aTHEISTS don't know the truth, and it's our mission to share the light with them... from the previous comment I understand that they get defensive when they know they can't prove anything they believe in, so we need to get offensive and attack their doctrines that are a worthless bunch of baloney, to attack what they believe in and ultimately prove them wrong! You know you are winning, when somebody gets defensive... You can see they have no base for their useless theories! If somebody doesn't want to listen, it just means that they are scared of being proven wrong! MUHAHHHAHAHHHAHHHHAAA!"
Ok, how about we visualize the world 50 years down the line, how about 500, how about 5000, what do you see? Seriously, what religion do you think will be the most prominent one 5000 years from now? Think Christianity/Islam/Judaism will reign supreme, or maybe a new religion will knock one of these big boys out? If not, I bet that's what the Greeks/Romans thought about Olympia and Zeus, but that didn't work out to well, and before them the Egyptians had Ra as the big dog forever as well, and Mesopotamians were pretty sure they had it right as well.
I have nothing against religion. I actually have a keen interest in it and enjoyed the couple of classes that I took on Compartive Religion. I have many friends who are VERY devout in their beliefs and I also have a great appreciation for the teachings/words of Jesus Christ as they are in the New Testament. The one thing I don't like is an inability of ANYONE on either side of not being open-minded or tolerant enough to actually understand and discuss any issue that may question their own personal view/belief. If EVERYONE in the world actually did think "What Would Jesus Do?", maybe we'd be less hostile to anyone that had a conflicting opinion.
Matthew 5:44, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." So could those who do believe and even those who don't actually heed his words, please? I hold those that truly do in the highest regards as human beings. I may be an atheist, but I still have a strong moral and ethical character despite never going to church. I guess I'll thank my godless parents for the help. - TimmyK., on 10/12/2007, -3/+5>>> posted by tryferos "Plain and simple to all those who think this or anything "proves" evolution...look at your car, house, computer, IPod, whatever. None of that stuff just popped into existance. None of that stuff evolved into what it is now. These things all pale in comparison to the universe, the exact workings of it, the planets, and you and I. There is obviously an intelligence that designed and built everything in the universe. All the fanboys of both Microsoft and Apple are so willing to praise them and the things they created, yet they spit in God's face. Geez!"
So what you are saying is that iPods prove the existence of God? Remember that people in the past who had your beliefs on the origins of the universe and life also didn't believe in planets, and stars as we know them, or that the Earth was even a planet, or that it was round or not the center of the universe. What changed their minds? Science. Overwhelming scientific evidence. It got to the point where no intelligent person could deny that the planets revolved around the sun, and that the sun was just another in the billions of stars in our galaxy, which is just one in billions of galaxies. I personally believe that we are at that point in the evolution vs. creationism debate. I can't see any intelligent person believing in literal word for word biblical creationism. Whether you believe that it is controlled by some sort of God or not, evolution is the absolute best theory to explain the way life has developed on our world. If you are going to continue to believe that humans were just created as is in the blink of an eye, then you should also just go ahead and believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, is flat, and is the center of the universe. At least then you would be consistent in your crazy archaic beliefs, and not a hypocrite who believes what science can teach us only when it suits you. Your post is just too idiotic to believe. You are a disgrace to your user icon.
Also you can't spit in the face of something if you don't believe in it. Why do religious types get all shocked that people who don't believe in the same God that they do don't have an incredible fear of that God? - plasminojen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cool to know that HeLa cells are now 60 years old...didn't give them that kind of respect when I worked with them...!
- yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The earth is what, 5+ b-billion years old!
We've been 'civilized' for what, 4000 years?
That's all I have to say."
'M4tt3r' - Define 'civilized'.
Civilized
1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and
Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.
Only 4000 years?! How about the Egyptians (from 3000BC), The Mayan (5000BC), or one of the oldest know civilization 'The Mahabharata' of India (7000BC!). That means civilization is at least 9000 years old. Were you awake during history class? - Hypersapien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course they are immortal. That is how cancer cells form. A mutation occurs that stops the cells from dying off when they are supposed to.
- mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"but rather the part where people believe that humans used to be monkeys."
I don't think anybody believes that. Isn't it supposed to be that we share a common ancestor? If it were stated that we had mysteriously turned into humans from monkeys overnight I would call ***** on that. That would just be stupid. - floguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Every piece of knowledge starts with a basic assumption. With supporters of intelligent design/creationism, I would argue that that assumption is that "life has intrinsic value." That differs from the common scientist whose basic assumption is that "our sense data is correct and our logic derived from that sense data is rational and sound." The latter would be the empirico-rationalistic epistemology.
These basic assumptions are not necessarily in direct conflict, but obviously down the line, there will be points at which the differences these two viewpoints cannot be reconciled.
The point is not that one epistemology is necessarily more correct (although I have my own thoughts on the matter.) The point is that the incompatibility between science and religion lies in something far more basic than most would think. - lame_duck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Shots: Actually, you would have to find a church that teaches the bible right. I've been to so many that do it wrong, it would make you wanna cry. A friend of mine when to this one place where they thought there type of church was the only correct one, when in fact the bible states that many churches make of the body of Christ.
As long as I live, I'll never understand why people believe if your religious you do not think science is true. It may be true for some religions, but not all. I am a Christian, I do not have a religion but faith and I do believe in most things science proves. No, I don't believe in evolution, for the simple fact that there are too many "coincidences" for it to have come about. To believe evolution you would have to believe that the Earth was just lucky enough to have the perfect position, size, and conditions. We know this to be true because of Mars. If Mars really had water like science says, I believe it to be the truth, then what was the reason it didn't create life? Was the size or position off? Maybe the conditions were not perfect? *I believe it's as simple as God not wanting life there, but lets stay on the science track for others.* Whats the chances of there being 2 planets in one system with water, a good atmosphere *in Mars' case, use to be good* but one didn't create life?
Ok, so Earth can create life. Ok, lets go the none-believer way and say God was not needed for life. Well, we have to be lucky enough to get a planet that will make life out of basic component's. We now have the earth covered in mostly water. We just happen to have the right amount of everything to make a cell. So after millions of years of the sea churning, it makes your basic cell. That's the second coincidence for you who are counting.
Ok, we have Earth, a cell, and now we need MORE! So now cells are multiplying, they cover the sea like foam. After another million years, the cells start clinging toghter and making bigger groups of cells. Maybe a mutant gene or something, but they still get the ideal to group. There's number 3.
So we have groups of cells, covering the ocean in patches. Passing the three million year mark, they start to specialize. You can begin to see familiar shapes take place. They start to grown like this because the need for food is greater. They learn to dive deep and live there for the things they need. The others that didn't learn, die. That's number 4.
I'm stopping here, because this causes a bunch of problems. How did they "learn" that they needed food and what was on the surface was being consumed by the non-changed ones? How did they even get the ideal to form in such a way that they could move? How did they even group in the first place?!
Here is my problem with evolution. You MUST believe that the Earth just happened to be in the right place, with the right conditions, and the right amount of everything. In this day and age, we should be able to create such conditions and watch cells form, group, and grow; We can not tho. Science doesn't want to admit this. They wanna keep on lieing to themselves and others, because they see that human genes and monkey genes are a like. So what? A human heart and a pig heart are most a like but you don't hear people going, "WE CAME FROM PIGS!" Why? Because a pig doesn't have legs, thumbs, and the ability to walk on two legs.
You believe in evolution, you gotta turn a blind eye to certain things. I noticed a guy made a comment about Christian schools not teaching about Dinos, ever notice science teachers going in depth about how a cell learned that it needed to join other cells? You don't? Maybe because they don't know how it happened? Just like us Christians don't really know where to classify Dino's. I believe there is a reason there not in the bible. Maybe it was on a "Need to know basis" and we didn't need to know. :p It could just be a riddle givin to us by God. Or it could just be a animal that died due to none-adaption. *Adaption is different from Evolution.*
In closing, you have to remember. Science is a game of guess and prove. You make a educated guess about what might of took place or how something works, then try to prove it. I believe the reason evolution is still with us is because of mans wanted to not believe in God, the belief that we are some how greater than him. Even if we had the proof none-believers needed to show that God created all, there would still be a movement to disprove it. - dbilbey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jomega : who said: "Or, are you suggesting that completely different building blocks (ie, an insects compound eye) were designed by a different designer?"
No, I am merely claiming that an omnipotent God would use the right tools for the job and that the claim that common DNA points to a common ancestor is no more logical (slightly less so IMO) than the claim that it points to a common designer.
You also said:
"No, no it isn't. Evolutionists claim that man and all primates share a common ancestor."
in response to my statement:
"Yet that [man came from monkeys overnight] is exactly what evolutionists claim."
I had posted two links, but as this was my first Digg post, I didn't realize that they would not show.
My statement was meant to merely point to the popular evolutionary belief that major speciation changes did occur [essentially] "overnight". The widely accepted (in evolutionary circles) Punctuated Equilibrium theory states just that. Yet, jhaven stated that for anyone to claim this, "would just be stupid."
@kindrobot: who said: 'That's human-centric. Natural order is not something we came up with when we discovered how to code. Let's get over ourselves. We are BOTH copying and a PART of nature itself. Why are apparently intelligent people so willing to separate human beings from nature? We are as much a part of nature as monkey DNA or carbon atoms.
The only way to come to your conclusion is to make the statement "i as a human am outside all else in this universe, and therefore special in some way that what I create falls into place in a new or novel fashion simply because of who I am instead of the possibility that ALL things MUST fall into that same order because that is the nature of all things."'
in response to my statement:
"Sharing DNA shows a common designer who used common building blocks to design complex systems."
I am indeed "over myself". I am nothing without God, yet 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.' Philippians 4:13
Your comments do not relate to mine at all. I do not claim to be "outside all else in this universe" as you state, though I claim that God is. Your comment that "ALL things MUST fall into that same order because that is the nature of all things" is very wise-sounding but completely unfounded. Please look into the second law of thermodynamics; the 'nature of all things' is actually to tend toward disorder, which is completely contradictory to your claim. A computer program would not just come together because that is its nature: it needs a designer. Of course, my computer programs are nowhere near as complex as a single-celled organism, let alone the entire universe; just the same, I am nowhere near as competent a designer as the almighty God.
Everyone knows that God exists, some are just in denial: check out Romans 1:20-23. If you don't have a bible, go to studylight.org - frizop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is also a wiki on this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helacyton_gartleri
with some nice external links. - dhcmrlchtdj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This discussion certainly took a bizarre turn. Every culture on Earth has an origination story. The account in the Bible (or rather, the Old Testament) is one such story. The truly weird thing is that some Christians take their story to be the literal truth. I could see that happening for a primitive culture, but the fact that the literalists have survived so long in Christianity defies all logic. You would imagine that a religion that's been around for 2000 years and spread halfway around the world would be able to come to terms with its duality: that it is both a history and a philosophy, and that perhaps the origination story is more of a historical curiosity and far, far less important than the philosophy. But to their own detriment, they insist on believing both equally. I must be ignorant in some way because while I agree with the philosophy (for the most part), I fail to see why I should subscribe to the origination story of a nomadic desert tribe that lived thousands of years ago halfway around the world. The Bible also claims that pi is exactly 3, which is obviously false, though that did not prevent a certain Indiana senator from introducing legislation to correct the modern-day value. I don't think anyone has a problem with contradicting the Bible on this count. By Occam's Razor, evolution is the simplest way to explain our existence, period. While certain details may not yet be discovered, I seriously doubt the evolutionary framework giving way to something else. Speaking as a computer programmer, there are a number of genetic algorithms in use today, none of which, when applied, would give evidence of an external intelligence at work.
- wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Plain and simple to all those who think this or anything "proves" evolution...look at your car, house, computer, IPod, whatever. None of that stuff just popped into existance. None of that stuff evolved into what it is now. These things all pale in comparison to the universe, the exact workings of it, the planets, and you and I. There is obviously an intelligence that designed and built everything in the universe. All the fanboys of both Microsoft and Apple are so willing to praise them and the things they created, yet they spit in God's face. Geez!"
I completely agree with mushoo, those are all human tools. The ability to create and use tools is what seperated us from the common ancestor we share with the current day monkey. At least that's one of the factors. They stayed in the trees, we didn't, etc. Am I right? - wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If those cells are immortal, how can there be evolution? Survival of the fittest also means that the weak ones die."
Survival of the fittest means that the least fit ones die out, not the weakest. - yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cached from different site, http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:wYEryb-FbBQJ:www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html+Henrietta%27s+tumor&hl=en&client=opera
- sketchstudios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1F#@K THE RIAA AND MPAA !!!!......
...
oh wait, wrong page. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@lowgan - "a paperclip or a cardboard box can't evolve, why would anyone think that, that even a something as small as a single celled organism can, let alone a human."
what would be because a paper clip and a box aren't capable of cellular division or reproduction, you stupid freak. - tritesnikov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"a paperclip or a cardboard box can't evolve, why would anyone think that, that even a something as small as a single celled organism can, let alone a human. you are not here by mistake, you have a purpose. God loves you :) "you are fearfully and wonderfully made" (in His image)" - Lowgan
Except that, in a sense, single-celled organisms do evolve, if evolution is defined as adaptation. Why do you think penicillin doesn't work as well as it used to? Because some bacteria had a mutation that had better defenses against it and survived and replicated. And yes, that is microevolution, and not proof for macroevolution, but to say that single-celled organisms don't evolve just because we haven't been around long enough to be able to observe it is a little premature. I believe in Christ too (who doesn't see a problem with evolution being the process God used to create), but let's make sure we're making decent arguments when we're debating this topic. Please don't take what I said the wrong way. I'm not trying to be an *****, but just make sure that the counterarguments are considered as well.
If you really want to know, from what I've studied, the accounts in Genesis aren't necessarily meant as a scientific account of what happened, how it happened, and even in what order it happened. If you look, chapter 2 has a second account of creation that follows a different sequence of events than chapter 1. In chapter 2, earth was created, then man, then the garden with plants, then animals, and then Eve. Totally different than the sequence in chapter 1. An argument that I've heard and subscribe to is that since the creation accounts tell of creation through a sequence of events, it suggests that God works through a process (instead of just randomly), and so the big bang and evolution would fit just fine into that interpretation.
The argument also goes that the accounts are allegorical, and similar to other stories of creation from the surrounding cultures in telling of God or gods bringing order out of chaos, which is precisely how the first chapter of Genesis reads. It talks of God establishing light and separating it from darkness, establishing heaven and earth from a formless void, thereby establishing order from nothingness. And also establishing land from water. I also believe that I remember, but don't quote me on this as it's been a couple of years, that the ancient Israelites believed that the wilderness/desert and water as in the vast expanse of ocean were also symbols of chaos in this context, and so creating land is also establishing order from chaos.
The main point is that the creation accounts are not necessarily how things happened, exactly as they happened, in the order that they happened. The second account of creation also contradicts the first if you subscribe to the 6-24 hour day belief of creation, which usually suggests that the interpretation is wrong and another one should be looked for. I believe the one I gave takes into account the differences and also leaves room for the scientific way that creation "actually" happened. By actually, I mean the specific implementation, if you will, of how God went about creating the universe and humans. - AlmostEvil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I wonder what Europe would look like today if it weren't for the US's military power and influence."
Evidently living in a socialist paradise!
(sorry to everyone, I can't resist the bait..)
Yes, thanks for joining in WW2 three years after its start.. We noticed your immediate jump to our defence after you got attacked by the Japanese and the declaration of war of Germany to the United States. (not the other way)
WW1, everyone lost that one.. nobody saved nobody and everyone lost.
Don't have a strong military? I honestly don't know what you're smoking dude, but pass it around because I think everyone wants some of it.
Bail us out when someone is threatening us? Like who? Well, I dread the day when Uzbekistan rises to power and sweeps across Europe in a blitzkreig of military might, oh shall we rue the day we upset the United States!
At no point have I said the United States is full of idiots nor how much war mongers there are, infact I have read some very intelligent, cogent arguments primarilly on the scientific side of the debate of pro-evolution but also occasionally on the side of pro religion/id/creationism (which I admit like all things has different views and varying opinions from the slightly nutty and currenty Duane Gish lot to the more calm and reasoned people).
If you're not bothered to educate yourself for a debate and simply spout off ignorant insults, then you only manage to insult yourself.
I think you need to calm down, re-read my original post, take a deep breath and relax. It was a joke done in good humour. - LowGan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i live in the san francisco bay area, i go to valley christian school in dublin. of course being in high school, some kid always comes to school on monday with crutches or a cast, and most the time they can walk home without the crutches or can get the cast off earlier. my friends or teachers can come up to me(or my christian friends) with splitting migranes that they've had all day, and after praying, they are releived 100%.
why are they not on the news?
it's getting more and more normal first of all and seocndly, personal stories like these usually have trouble getting on the news...at least around here.
i couldn't doubt for a second that these are miracles of God. they don't happen any other time except after prayer - ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"To try to remain unbiased Im sure science could come along in some way to explain part of those events, but I think there is a bigger picture we are all missing, and I want to piece it together as best I can.
But some Doctors themselves, even the non-religious ones, will state they have seen miracles."-ezkiel
That is called circumstancial evidence and there is a reason scientists don't use it or believe it."
That is the narrowmindedness I'm talking about. Im sure science could eventually explain it too, but so can God.
It doesnt mean either is 100% fact.
There are many things that could be explained, but the explaination could still be wrong.
You just have to piece together as much information as you can and make a decision on your beliefs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"but rather the part where people believe that humans used to be monkeys. There is no evidence of that."
we evolved from a TYPE of primate. to call them monkeys is cheap, over simplifaction of the theory in order to try discredit it in the face of your own religous views being outted as untrue. - ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is a vicious circle that we can play all day. Those that believe will believe. Those that don't believe won't. A person who believes will die and go to heaven, whereas a person that doesn't believe will go into nothing, yet at the time of death both will feel they are right.
- southpaw3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why does everyone seem to insist that science and religion can't co-exist???
"Wheremyarm", you are no worse than the ultra-religious who deny science. - wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Another thing, tyferos.
You enjoy all these modern day inventions like your car, house, computer and iPod; and yet you spit in the face of the very thing that created them. Science! - Mohan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hmm... the discussions make me remember the "Rama Series" by Arthur C. Clarke.
- ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So what you are saying is that iPods prove the existence of God? Remember that people in the past who had your beliefs on the origins of the universe and life also didn't believe in planets, and stars as we know them, or that the Earth was even a planet, or that it was round or not the center of the universe. What changed their minds? Science. Overwhelming scientific evidence. It got to the point where no intelligent person could deny that the planets revolved around the sun, and that the sun was just another in the billions of stars in our galaxy, which is just one in billions of galaxies. I personally believe that we are at that point in the evolution vs. creationism debate. I can't see any intelligent person believing in literal word for word biblical creationism. Whether you believe that it is controlled by some sort of God or not, evolution is the absolute best theory to explain the way life has developed on our world. If you are going to continue to believe that humans were just created as is in the blink of an eye, then you should also just go ahead and believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, is flat, and is the center of the universe. At least then you would be consistent in your crazy archaic beliefs, and not a hypocrite who believes what science can teach us only when it suits you. Your post is just too idiotic to believe. You are a disgrace to your user icon.
Also you can't spit in the face of something if you don't believe in it. Why do religious types get all shocked that people who don't believe in the same God that they do don't have an incredible fear of that God?"
Quit putting words in his mouth. Science and Religion may have a tough time co-existing, but that doesn't change the fact mudslinging doesn't solve anything.
Quit being so narrowminded, iPods creation (what a stupid example) could be viewed as humans being unique and developing something, or making a bunch of things and only the most adaptable survive. They are both right to some extent.
read this: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm
and don't be so brash about your atheism.
You can't find god if you don't look for him. And you can't find science if you don't look for it.
Try to keep an open mind.
Take a step back and look at the universe and the patterns in it. These scream intelligent design, not pure randomness. - southpaw3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Again, I don't see why there has to be an eiter/or...
I'm a Catholic and yet I believe in the theory of evolution. - SnakeO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the life of the world (4 billion years) is represented on a 12 hour clock:
Dinosaurs lived 25 minutes.
Humans have been around for 19 seconds. - southpaw3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Let me add...
I feel that science and religion compliment eachother very well. There was some guy named Einstein who said, "the more I learn, the more I believe in a God" (or something along those lines).
Take a look at the world around us. We are at just the right distance from the sun, spinning on just the right axis, with just the right amount of water and just the right amount of axis with a moon that's just the right size.
Change any one of those things slightly and we're not here. Too many coincidences for there not to be some kind higher intelligence out there. - tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2TimmyK you argue as if the bible has no science, yet it is full of science, including that the world is round, and there is nothing in the bible talking about earth being the center of the universe. Your argument is full of confusion that is mixing things you think are in the bible and things that weren't believe by people in the bible. You prove yourself to be as idiotic as you claim I am, yet your ignorance screams louder than your empty words.
- ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lowgan said: "@J Omega
@ ezkiel : who said "Then again there is plenty of evidence of a supernatural world (for lack of a better term)."
Like what evidence, exactly?
i see numerous miracles a week, God is undeniably real. I've seen God restore sight to the blind, dissolve tumors, cure aids and HIV, mend broken bones, and open deaf ears. oh and the best one of all...people getting out of wheelchairs
who haven't walked in years!....i love God. he is so good! i myself have been healed of a bad knee and elbow. there's no explaining these things without God"
To try to remain unbiased Im sure science could come along in some way to explain part of those events, but I think there is a bigger picture we are all missing, and I want to piece it together as best I can.
But some Doctors themselves, even the non-religious ones, will state they have seen miracles. - jhaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"the part where people believe that humans used to be monkeys. There is no evidence of that"
except, of course, the whole sharing 98.5% of the same DNA.... - J_Omega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ dbibey : who said : "Sharing DNA shows a common designer who used common building blocks to design complex systems."
Or it shows COMMON DNA.
Or, are you suggesting that completely different building blocks (ie, an insects compound eye) were designed by a different designer?
@ Lowgan: who said : "yeah carbon dating is very unreliable and the results shouldn't be taken as fact."
It is SOMEWHAT unreliable, moreso for "young" things. Results are NOT taken as fact, but as evidence.
@ ezkiel : who said "Then again there is plenty of evidence of a supernatural world (for lack of a better term)."
Like what evidence, exactly?
@ dbibey : who said "I could just as easily claim that humans evolved from mice, since humans and mice share 99% of their DNA."
Or you could claim that mice and man share a common ancestor.
As well as you said "Yet that [man came from monkeys overnight] is exactly what evolutionists claim."
No, no it isn't. Evolutionists claim that man and all primates share a common ancestor. - TimmyK., on 10/12/2007, -2/+3>>>posted by tryferos "TimmyK you argue as if the bible has no science, yet it is full of science, including that the world is round, and there is nothing in the bible talking about earth being the center of the universe. Your argument is full of confusion that is mixing things you think are in the bible and things that weren't believe by people in the bible. You prove yourself to be as idiotic as you claim I am, yet your ignorance screams louder than your empty words."
Please tell me what science is in the Bible if you can (because there is none), and where it talks about the earth being round. If that were true then the church wouldn't have killed and tortured people for saying things like the Earth is not the center of the universe. Besides I never actually said that those things were in the Bible just that the people who follow your religion, and believed in creationism, also believed those things as well, up until scienctific evidence was too persuasive to ignore anymore. And I don't have more than a passing knowledge of the Bible, as I haven't read it since I was forced to as a child, but that is because I am not a Christian. Before you act as if that means I don't have the right to comment on Christianity you had better be fully versed in all evolutionary sciences before you comment on evolutionary theory. Ignorance by choice is the worst kind, and modern day Christianity seems to demand that of it's followers. Worst of all it demands that of the non-followers as well. - M4tt3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2sigh...
The earth is what, 5+ b-billion years old!
We've been 'civilized' for what, 4000 years?
That's all I have to say. - SciGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To get back to the story, just wanted to throw this out there: HeLa cells are not the only cancer-derived cells in culture. There are tens of thousands, if not more, cell lines that have been grown for extended periods for years in culture. In fact, cells don't even need to be cancerous to grow in a dish -- you can scrape cells from your arm or cheek and begin to expand them (assuming you could do this under sterile conditions). Any of these cells will begin to accumulate genetic changes that help them adapt to their new environment, the dish. Cells that divide rapidly take over the culture, whereas slowly dividing cells are competed out. This is scientific fact.
In fact, it is not just cells. Viruses grown in culture also accumulate mutations as they are grown in culture. The same principles apply. The virus now has the job of infecting cells in culture instead of complex organisms. Viruses that contain mutations that allow them to better infect these new cells in a dish are selected over those that are not successful in the dish. This is how live, attenuated vaccines are made. Viruses are passaged in eggs, for example, to create viruses that are related to the original but are no longer "pathogenic", or able to cause disease.
And it's not just viruses and cells. It's bacteria, flies, it's everything that is alive (and many that are not -- most don't consider viruses alive).
Regarding evolution, this is certainly weak evidence for evolution -- there is so much more compelling evidence out there that this isn't needed. There is no debate. No serious scientists debate whether or not evolution occurs. To think otherwise is to be delusional. - dbilbey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Herolint: "but rather the part where people believe that humans used to be monkeys."
mushoo: "I don't think anybody believes that. Isn't it supposed to be that we share a common ancestor? If it were stated that we had mysteriously turned into humans from monkeys overnight I would call ***** on that. That would just be stupid."
To mushoo:
Yet that is exactly what evolutionists claim.
jhaven: "except, of course, the whole sharing 98.5% of the same DNA.."
To jhaven:
This means nothing. By your logic, I could just as easily claim that humans evolved from mice, since humans and mice share 99% of their DNA.
To mushoo and jhaven:
I am a programmer. When I write code, I use libraries and other snippets that I have previously written so as not to reinvent the wheel; nobody would claim that all of my programs evolved from a common ancestor program. Sharing DNA shows a common designer who used common building blocks to design complex systems. - 0001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
- Lurk3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I, for one, welcome our new tumor overlords...
- J_Omega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ sarcasm : LOL @ the rhetorical.
YES! It is normal for cancer cells to reproduce (near) perfectly. Note though that the "immortality" of the cells isn't because of reproduced cells - the ORIGINAL tumor cells are still viable. They look/act the same as on the day they were removed from HeLa - they haven't aged/deteriorated.
The study of these cells leads some scientists to believe that they are key to our being able to extend (perhaps indefinitely, given proper sustinence) our own life!
Its really neat stuff - evolution debate aside.
(And it is old news. Note that the cells were removed 50+ years ago, given their own species designation nearly 15 years ago.) -
Show 51 - 100 of 223 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is