Any person or scientist who claims to pursue truth has to take notice of the astounding research available. Evolution will be seen as the shamanism of age.
November 26, 2013
"One of the features of Gladwell’s genre is a repeated effort to back the stories he tells with evidence from academic sources—a move that has attracted some of the most virulent attacks on his work. Yet Gladwell has more in common with his academic critics than either he or they realize, or care to admit. Academic writing is rarely a pursuit of unpopular truths; much of the time it is an attempt to bolster prevailing orthodoxies and shore up widely felt but ill-founded hopes. There are many examples of academics who have distorted fact or disregarded evidence in order to tell an edifying tale that accords with respectable hopes."
October 28, 2013
"I want to know how God created this world. I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."
- Albert Einstein (via thaithai)
October 7, 2013
Hard to see this as anything more than inflammatory.
(Creation Museum founder Ken Ham puts up anti-atheist billboard in Times Square)
September 12, 2013
Gears are a potent symbol of human industry, a sign of mechanical wonder or a cold assembly line. If you had to pick something to stand against the natural world, they’d be a pretty likely pick — except that as it turns out, insects discovered them first. In a paper published today in Science, Malcolm Burrows and Gregory Sutton of the University of Cambridge reveal that the plant-hopping Issus coleoptratus leaps with the aid of a pair of tiny, one-way gears, the first functional ones ever found on an animal.
Anonymous asked: You know that when you cite articles from creationist websites, that is a biased source?
Define an non-biased source. Mainstream colleges and scientific institutions?
Creationist websites are communicating opinion based on events, science, and attitudes (just like everyone else). In most cases it is the only information available challenging the status quo. (Yes some assume citation as the suggestion of authoritative. But I am not, take or leave what you will.)
Good evolutionists stick to the data and don’t judge faith based opinions, good creationists stick to the data and don’t judge Darwinist based opinions.
August 20, 2013
Hand Axes Show Distinct Neanderthal Cultures
A study by a postgraduate researcher at the Univ. of Southampton has found that Neanderthals were more culturally complex than previously acknowledged. Two cultural traditions existed among Neanderthals living in what is now northern Europe between 115,000 to 35,000 years ago.
Karen Ruebens from the Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO) and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) examined the design of 1,300 stone tools originating from 80 Neanderthal sites in five European countries; France, Germany, Belgium, Britain and the Netherlands.
Read more: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2013/08/hand-axes-show-distinct-neanderthal-cultures
July 23, 2013
Life on Land Began Much Earlier than Believed
Conventional scientific wisdom has it that plants and other creatures have only lived on land for about 500 million years, and that landscapes of the early Earth were as barren as Mars.
A new study, led by geologist Gregory Retallack of the Univ. of Oregon, now has presented evidence for life on land that is four times as old — at 2.2 billion years ago and almost half way back to the inception of the planet.
Read more: http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2013/07/life-land-began-much-earlier-believed
And there you have it, the ever expanding timeline. Rendering all of the geological data worthless. Because 7 to 8 thousand years of traceable information has little or no meaning compared to 2 billion years of imaginary science. Prediction: the timeline will be 6 to 8 billion years before they are through.
June 18, 2013
Currently on display at The Field Museum, this is the name given to an anatomically modern human dating from the Magdalenian period. Although she is commonly known as the Magdalenian Girl, evidence suggests that she is more likely 25-30 years old, with some researchers placing her at age 35. Early researchers initially thought that she was much younger than that because her wisdom teeth had not ruptured, but new research suggests she is older than originally thought because of epiphyseal fusions of the femurs.
Unfortunately, she was discovered when a worker hit her skull with a pickaxe. This greatly damaged her skull and the black you see on her skull is a reconstruction that early researchers fused to the bone.
At the time that Magdalenian Girl was discovered, researchers believed that homo neanderthalensis was the direct ancestor to anatomically modern humans, and so when they reconstructed her skull they gave her Neanderthal features, which is incorrect. The reconstruction you see here was done by Elisabeth Daynès, who also did the most recent facial reconstruction of Tutankhamun.
Magdalenian Girl is currently on display at the Field Museum in their current exhibit Scenes from the Stone Age: The Cave Paintings of Lascaux. She is part of the museum’s permanent collection and is the most complete paleolithic skeleton in North America.
May 31, 2013
Anonymous asked: I'm sorry, but how in the world does evolution *not* make sense to you? I truly don't understand. You'd have to be extremely uneducated to believe in literal creationism. Do you just not understand how evolution works?
Why are you sorry? Do you truly wish to understand, or are you just insulted by a differing opinion? I would have to be uneducated to believe a being may have created things? Most people would find that offensive. Perhaps educated means indoctrinated? There are many educated people who do not believe in evolution. If you read this blog you would see that I have a modest understanding of how evolution works—and I DON’T BUY IT. I do not choose to blindly follow what I’m told. Either from priest or professor.
Anonymous asked: 1) Let's get this clear. Only 15% of Americans accept evolution. This is not a majority. 2) There is no evidence for creationism. You seem to have an unclear understanding of science: science is the observation and understanding of the natural world, the OBSERVABLE world. Whether or not there is a god is a metaphysical question which has nothing to do with science. There is no grand conspiracy of scientists trying to fix the system or ignoring evidence. Evolution is the best poss. explanation.
“Let’s get this clear” sounds pretty demanding. Okay mommy?
According to this Wikipedia article 48% of religious people claim support to evolution. And according to the National Center for Science Education the number has hovered between 39% and 53% for evolution.
A FASEB poll, (found that it depends on how you ask the question) researchers asked half of the respondents about their views on the evolution of “all living things” and found that 61 percent accepted that “all living things have evolved over time.” src
2) There is plenty of evidence against evolution and there is evidence for creationism. However, modern science has 100 years of gaining control of power structures that mostly refuse to objectively debate the issues. 95% of scientists believe in evolution. That is a majority. I happen to believe they are wrong and want to hear more from the 5%. Evolution is the best possible solution because you have been told it is. Complexity coming from nothing makes a lot less sense than coming from a designer.