1. Comment #26180 by Fishpeddler on March 17, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Amazing! Not only did God ingeniously place this creature in the strata such as to further deceive us into believing in the theory of evolution, but he conveniently placed a penny there for us to see that this fossil is only as old as Abraham Lincoln. Praise baby Jesus!

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

2. Comment #26183 by Duff on March 17, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Fishpeddler, I almost choked on my aperitif! Brilliant!! Satire slays the religious dragons better than any sword.

Other Comments by Duff

3. Comment #26187 by AtheistJunkie on March 17, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Love it.

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

4. Comment #26196 by MelM on March 17, 2007 at 4:02 pm

From yesterday's e-mail update from NCSE (National Center for Science Education):

APA [American Psychological Association] opposes teaching "intelligent design" as science
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/US/368_apa_opposes_teaching_intellig_3_14_2007.asp

This reafirms a 1982 resolution.
The NCSE article contains links to both the press release and the actual statement (both are very short).
Note that the statement is quite strong but that the press release contains this little gem:

Q: What about the teaching of intelligent design as religious theory?

A: APA is very mindful that religion and science are two very different pursuits. We fully support any individual's religious choices and beliefs.

The APA resolution speaks to the absence of scientific methods or evidence to support the teaching of intelligent design as science. It is not meant to question the legitimacy of intelligent design as a religious philosophy.

APA undercuts science.
They didn't have to suck-up to religion in this press release but they did it anyway. (They should have called it a mental disorder.) Worse is the part about not questioning the legitimacy of ID as a religious philosophy. What sanity is there to calling evolution false in Bible class and true in science class? True means true. False means false. Here we have the APA providing support for fundies deciding that the problem is the fault of the scientists who are insisting on a definition of science that's wrong and keeping a legitimate alternative idea from being taught. Look at it from the fundie perspective: If someone says that the purpose of science is to find the truth and that ID may be true, then I think it follows that any definition of science that excludes ID is wrong. The idea that ID isn't science but it may be good theology is "giving away the argument" and is undercutting science.

Protest.
I've seen this before and it always makes me angry as hell. Scientists and others could help by e-mailing the APA to protest. I found this e-mail address: ppo@apa.org Doing things like this will have more impact than spending the next 1000 years on futile debates with wingnuts.

Other Comments by MelM

5. Comment #26201 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 17, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Wow, love learning stuff like this. I knew about ears being the left overs of gills but I wasn't aware of where the ear bones came from. That's pretty cool.

Also interesting to see that the upper ribs were more solid than the lumbar ribs. Now I'm probably wrong on this, but to me that fills in a huge whole in my head. Just looking at the fish tank I see rib like strips all the way down the fish (I know they aren't bone, but what the hey), then this little beast with solid ribs around it's torso and softer ribs around it's lumbar region, then look at modern mamals with just the solid torso ribs.
Am I way off the mark on this? If I'm right does any one have any interesting links on this?

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

6. Comment #26211 by steveroot on March 17, 2007 at 5:18 pm

The evolution of the human head and neck is very interesting. Here's a book I read when I was in dental school. It was written as a sort of response to the Scopes "Monkey Trial".
Steve


Our Face from Fish to Man

FOREWORD

BY WILLIAM BEEBE

A FOREWORD to a volume such as the present one of Dr. Gregory's is as superfluous as would be the retention of the third eye, the Cyclopean one, of our ancestors, in the center of our forehead today. No more wonderful subject for a volume could be imagined than the evolution of the human face, and no more competent author than William K. Gregory. The result seems to me eminently satisfactory.

If the reader's interest is real but cursory, let him do nothing but look at the illustrations. They will ensure a thousand percent interest to every walk along Fifth Avenue or Regent Street. If pressure of other interests permits only an hour's perusal, or complete lack of natural history knowledge requires facts to be strained through the mesh of popular language, read but the preface and the first few paragraphs of each chapter.

Taken as a whole this is not a "popular" book in the sense of a superficial one. The details of evolution of our eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth--these are too delicate, too intricate for words of one syllable. Yet to read and understand this volume requires no more concentrated attention than the remembrance of the highest diamond in the ninth trick, or to what Steel Preferred fell in the Autumn of 1914.

I advise no Fundamentalist or Anti-Evolutionist to read it, for if he have no sense of humor he will not understand it, and if he have, his belief will be like Dunsany's King who "was as though he never had been." If with Bergson we believe that the origin of laughter was cruelty, then an S. P. C. to something should be formed to prevent the spectacle of a Fundamentalist's face functioning with the third eyelid of a bird, the ear-point of a deer, the honorable scars of most ancient gills, and with his lip-lifting muscles in full action as he sneers at truth. A moment's thought of these few characters presents a new viewpoint on what we are wont to call the "lower" animals, for if our third eyelid were more than a degenerate flap we, like an eagle, could look straight at the sun; if our ears could straighten and turn as once, the lives of pedestrians would be safer; if the ghosts of gills were still functional, drowning would be impossible, and if the fang-revealing sneer showed less degenerate canines, we might have a more physically wholesome fear of cavilers against the doctrine of Evolution.

The impregnable array of facts gleaned through the centuries of man's intellectual supremacy proves beyond all question the gradual rise toward human perfection of the various components of the face, and this confirms our precious organs of sense as most noble gateways of the human mind and soul. Kindness, gentleness, tactfulness, patience, can flow out through only these channels. It is a worthy thing to have written a book about them; it is a fortunate chance to be able to read it.

Source:
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=4920692
you can only see the first few pages, but you get the idea...

http://cgi.ebay.com/OUR-FACE-FROM-FISH-TO-MAN-BY-WILLIAM-K-GREGORY-1965_W0QQitemZ320091212975QQcmdZViewItem

Other Comments by steveroot

7. Comment #26223 by USA_Limey on March 17, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Oh Fishpeddler....

That was so teapotdamn funny but I don't know whether to love you or hate you being as I almost choked to death on my cookie when I read your post: teapotdamn could you give us a warning next time!!!

Brilliant.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

8. Comment #26228 by pugowner on March 17, 2007 at 9:14 pm

MelM: I wonder if the American Psychological Association would pass a resolution to state that while the APA opposes discrimination against the GLBT community, this is not meant to question the legitimacy of declaring homosexuality an abomination as a religious philosophy.

Other Comments by pugowner

9. Comment #26233 by MelM on March 17, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Re: #26196 by MelM and #26228 by pugowner

I'm not aware of what the APA has done with regard to gays. A statement along the lines of that in the press release concerning evolution would, of course, be absurd.

I got myself busy and sent an e-mail to APA. I was very polite and didn't accuse them of sucking-up to the barking mad faith heads. Nor did I suggest that religion should be classed as a mental disorder--although I was sure tempted. I didn't rant; I stuck to my argument and thanked them for their efforts. I thought the resolution itself was quite strong and gave no ground to the wingnuts; it was the press release that was quite disappointing.

I've seen the "bad science but maybe good theology" crap before and I think it's one of the worst ways of "supporting" evolution. I hope the resolution statement will endure and that the press release will be ignored.

I had thought it would take quite awhile to write the e-mail, but once I got started, it went rather quickly; I guess I already pretty much knew what I wanted to say.

Other Comments by MelM

10. Comment #26235 by Roy_H on March 17, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Another nail in the Creationist's coffin lid. I almost did a little dance when Tiktaalik was discovered, an intermediate creature that represents the transition between the fish and amphibians.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

Other Comments by Roy_H

11. Comment #26237 by fonex_86 on March 17, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Another nail in the Creationist's coffin lid.

Unfortunately, coffins are quite useless against zombies... they never stop kicking and moaning in there -- you'd think they were alive.

Other Comments by fonex_86

12. Comment #26274 by Fishpeddler on March 18, 2007 at 9:05 am

It is exciting that gaps in the fossil record continue to be filled. However, I do agree with fonex_86's sentiment above. The battle against the foolishness that is Creationism will be won on a much more fundamental level than simply increasing the body of evidence, which is already overwhelming. The battle will be won only when our society is no longer under the sway of people who reject weight-of-evidence and logic as the best methods of discovering truths about our world. And that won't happen at least until we being to do a better job of developing sound critical thinking skills and understanding of science in our children. A small percentage of children are more or less 'science tracked', and the rest are condemned to an lifetime understanding of the universe dominated by the supernatural and absurd.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

13. Comment #26281 by nine9s on March 18, 2007 at 9:44 am

I think I remember Michael Sherman saying that any time you find a transition fossil, the creationist will still say, "Well what's the transition between the first fossil and the transition fossil?" So every transition fossil found will create the need for two more transition fossils. The way he put it was actually funny, though. ;)

Other Comments by nine9s

14. Comment #26410 by Phaderus on March 19, 2007 at 6:41 am

I believe Michael's quote was in regard to the God of the Gaps argument and stated that the creationists should be happy every time a gap was filled with a transitional fossil because it created two more gaps on each side of the fossil.

Other Comments by Phaderus

15. Comment #26416 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 7:15 am

Unfortunately, coffins are quite useless against zombies... they never stop kicking and moaning in there -- you'd think they were alive.
Comment #26237 by fonex_86 on March 17, 2007 at 11:55 pm


WTF???

I've been visiting this site off and on for the past several months…. the thing I don't understand is why the vast majority of posters on this site find it necessary to call those who believe in God "mentally ill" or "delusional"….(etc. etc….)

You know, I have a passing interest in the life-style of the non-believer (as I am one) but I gotta tell ya…. most of the posters on this site are a little creepy….

Not that I care…. I'm just saying…..

Here's what I don't get….. As a non-believer myself I find it a little contradictory the "lashing" I have received form others regarding some comments I've left. For example, I commented (more or less) that I could care less about global warming and its effect on future generations; which don't matter to me now….. and won't matter when I'm dead.

To me my comment was completely rational… Why should people that haven't been born yet matter to me now (in the present)….? obviously when I'm dead…. Nothing much will matter… including the climate of planet earth. I'm all about the "here and now" and how can I benefit from you….. For the life of me…. I cannot understand why you would choose to live any other way.

Yes I am amoral…. My actions have consequences in this society just like anyone else….. however, I am not obliged to live my life with the interest of others…. In fact, if you choose to do so, I believe you are in the same boat as the "religious fundies"…..

What you think you feel is not reality….. hello……

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

16. Comment #26437 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 10:22 am

Spagmo sure you can be amoral. You don't need to feel there is some kind of moral imperative imposed upon you to want to act responsibly towards the earth. I simply feel the world is beautiful, and human life is of great worth. For which reason I don't want to jeopardise either of those. I think this view of the world is rational as well as being more fulfilling than a narrow and irresponsible hedonism.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

17. Comment #26443 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 10:37 am

BaronOchs


I do act responsibly. To me responsibility is having the "ability to respond" in any given situation to whatever outcome will benefit me and bring me the most pleasure. I also see the world as beautiful but I don't necessarily agree that human life is of "great worth". Indeed, that's a very subjective statement; nevertheless, if you choose to place this (so called) "value" on human life that's up to you. However, I will contend that your belief in this "value" is just as "delusional" as any other "belief".

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

18. Comment #26445 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 10:59 am

Spaghetti Monster I don't hold any idealistic pretences about the human race. Nevertheless it is possible we are the most intelligent creatures in existence, even that have ever existed. I don't know if that is the case, of course oneday someone might find out, although they won't if humankind passes from existence through it's own negligence.

I'm just saying evolution has managed against the odds to create animals capable of high art and advanced mathematics and it would be stupid to throw it away. Now I don't think that's delusional really?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

19. Comment #26449 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 11:28 am

BaronOchs

Alright Baron…. First of all let me say that you are implying that humans, because of our "advanced art" and "mathematical abilities" have more "value" than say….. an egg plant.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Human life may have more value to YOU over an egg plant but, in reality….. no such value exists.

Your comment regarding evolution and how it has managed "against the odds" to "create" animals of (so called) intelligence is just plain wrong on every level. First of all; what are these "odds" that evolution has overcome? Listen, I'm fine with your belief system…. I just think you're a little "delusional"…. That's all.

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

20. Comment #26456 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 12:36 pm

My comment about evolution was unguarded perhaps. All i meant is that in a universe where life has evolved complex life is still relatively improbable. And where complex life has evolved intelligent life is also still improbable. I think that is uncontroversial.

Now I don't think I have more value than a Eggplant. I wouldn't do anything to jeopardise the continued existence of eggplants either. A universe with eggplants and people is preferable to one with only one or the other.

Of course an eggplant is never going to comprehend the intricacy that allows it to exist and it's good we can do so on their behalf so to speak.

So I'm delusional? Perhaps I'm also a little thick so you'll have to spell out to me why.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

21. Comment #26457 by Riley on March 19, 2007 at 12:41 pm

The Spaghetti Monster wrote: "in reality .... no such value exists".

I can see Spaghetti Monster that you're trying very hard to promote the idea that non-theism relies on nihilism, but you're doing a poor job. Your insistance that "values" do not exist relies on your implicit belief that there needs to be an absolute universal "values" authority, and as such this makes you more of a theist, than an atheist.

"Values" is a descriptive term used to identify a system of human preferences, especially societal preferences. Their existance does not in any way depend on the existance of any named or unnamed form of supernatural authority.The difference between theists and non-theists is not that one group has a system of values and the other group does not, but rather there is a disagreement about how to debate the basis and creation of societal values.

Theists claim that their values are handed-down from ultimate authority (e.g. god(s)) and rely on interpretations from holy books as the means to resolve conflicts.

Non-theists look to common shared interests and the principle of equal treatment as the basis for values and rely on science and reason as the means to resolve conflicts.


--

Other Comments by Riley

22. Comment #26468 by The Spaghetti Monster on March 19, 2007 at 1:34 pm

"I know you're trying very hard to promote the idea that "atheism" relies on nihilism"



If by nihilism you mean: total rejection of established laws and institutions. I do not think that atheism promotes or should promote this definition. I accept the laws of society and institutions that have put them forth. I am well aware of the consequences of my actions.

But, if by nihilism you mean: the denial of an objective basis for truth. I do believe that atheism should promote this definition. Let's face it, if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves; we must promote that FACT that there is no objective basis for what is right or wrong. The debate must be open to all.

Listen, if you would like to think I'm a "theist" go ahead….You can think of me anyway you choose; your thoughts are of no consequence to me.

You state:
"The existance of "Values" do not in any way depend on a belief in god or any other unnamed form of supernatural authority."

Well duh….

I agree with you that the term "value" is a descriptive term used to identify human preferences. Furthermore, I could care less whether or not these human preferences come from a book or shared interest. Fact is…. they're only preferences…

Listen, if you get satisfaction from the "belief" that your actions will have an impact (or will live on….. like some horrible meme) on others years after you're dead…. Good on ya. As for me….. I could care less about the "echos" of my most cherished ideas….. and I don't think I'll be anymore concerned after I'm dead. I want more money and sex…… but, that's just me.

Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster

23. Comment #26482 by BaronOchs on March 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm

"I want more money and sex"

Go for it mate. No one is denying you the right to pursue your own wellbeing. What I'm saying is we should do so in a way not detrimental to others, or to society as a whole.

If everyone pursued their own interests with no concern for society pretty soon it would become very difficult for anyone to acheive a state of wellbeing. That's why I think your position is inconsistent.

Besides if you were a victim of violence or injustice you'd feel wronged, but what would you have left to appeal to after you've rejected the values at the heart of society?

You do say however:

If by nihilism you mean: total rejection of established laws and institutions. I do not think that atheism promotes or should promote this definition. I accept the laws of society and institutions that have put them forth. I am well aware of the consequences of my actions.

But of course any civilisation wishes to ensure its own survival (a desire shared by the majority of the adult population who have children), so this is inconsistent with your I-don't-give-a-crap-about-the-future-of-the-world line.

The fact is there are grounds on which common values can be founded. Everyone wishes to pursue pleasure and avoid pain for instance. You have said on this thread you find the world beautiful so why would you want to behave indifferently towards it?

I'm not sure I can see where you're coming from.





Other Comments by BaronOchs

24. Comment #26495 by Barnacle on March 19, 2007 at 6:24 pm

When I flicked through this issue of Nature and saw that fossil, I punched the air yet another time. I don't think there is much of an effect to be had on theists with these transitional fossils - but they are wonderful discoveries anyway and they represent a sort of personal victory in my eyes.

Anyway, Spaghetti Monster, let me first say that I don't think you're a theist as was implied by someone earlier but I do disagree a little with you.

Amongst other things, you said earlier: "Sorry, I have to disagree. Human life may have more value to YOU over an egg plant but, in reality….. no such value exists."

I agree with you there - the value doesn't exist in the sense that it hasn't been declaired by some transcendental being to be 'valuable'. We assign our own personal value to things. It just so happens that many of us agree on what is valuable. Even you, who claim to be 'amoral', know what is considered 'moral' - and probably largely without needing to think much about it. You also assign value to your own life that, 'in reality', as you say, has no value at all.

As you said 'YOU' may think otherwise. We each choose for ourselves what is valuable. If I feel an eggplant has more value than a human, then that's it - for me an eggplant is more valuable than a human! But, clearly, very few people (if any) think this. The fact that you chose this example suggests you also don't think this.

As an atheist, I don't follow some universal moral code written in a book (or otherwise). I, instead, do what I 'feel' is right (which happens to include remaining within the confines of the law in my case). I do what I 'feel' is right for myself - it makes me feel good.

For example, I get a certain satisfaction from helping friends or family or from donating to charity. To go to your original example, I particularly enjoy nature and personaly value it so I 'want' to help prevent global warming and preserne species that might otherwise go extinct. None of this is to do with some moral code - it is me doing what makes me feel happy or that, for whatever reason, I feel I should do (not because someone told me to - but because I 'feel' this way). So, like you, I am being completely and utterly selfish in every sense - except that the outcome is widely considered 'moral'.

Why these things are so widely seen as 'moral' and why I personaly gain some sort of pleasure from being 'moral' may be down to my evolutionary history but I digress.

What I really wanted to point out is that your assignment of particular significance to your own feelings is equivalent to anyone else assigning significance to the feelings they have for anything else they happen to care about - for whatever selfish (or apparently otherwise) reason.

When you say, "To me responsibility is having the "ability to respond" in any given situation to whatever outcome will benefit me and bring me the most pleasure.", you are saying exactly what I also think. The only difference is that you don't recognise that people like me (and apparently many others on this board) do actually gain some sort of satisfaction from trying to help future generations or from doing things widely considered 'moral' or 'altruistic'. This wanting to help future generations is still just about pleasing myself - but the outcome is (likely to be) good for many other people too. It doesn't matter that we won't be around to see the outcome - the point is only that we gain something from it NOW (just like you've been saying).

So, basically, I see your stance as being hypocritical. You are criticising other people for doing what you do just because the outcome of their actions is accepted as moral - whereas yours may not be.

Other Comments by Barnacle

25. Comment #26501 by MelM on March 19, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Religion has made it almost impossible to even think about ethics. If one drops "obedience to God" as the base of ethics, then an entirely different approach is needed. Since there is no supernatural realm, the source and base of any form of knowledge--including prescriptive--must be "reality." Feelings won't work in medicine and they don't work in life. Start by asking "If I landed on a deserted island (like Tom Hanks in the movie), what would be required to live and escape? What goal, values, and virtues would be required?" I'll just say that "reason" had better be on your list. If knowledge, food, medical advances and computers etc are values, then the primary action (reason) that brought them into existence is a virtue. Faith is irrational; that's why it's a vice. The base of ethics is that human life has identity. Nough said.

Other Comments by MelM

26. Comment #26545 by Riley on March 20, 2007 at 8:13 am

Barnacle, the viewpoint you patiently explained to Spaghetti Monster has been the view point he repeatedly expouses in-part and in-part repeatedly mocks, I'll paraphrase him: "You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. I don't care. There's no basis to claim that your values are better or worse than mine; all values are subjective. However, if you value anything that doesn't impact you here and now, you are no different than the religious fundies. So, don't claim religion is a delusion, because you're just as deluded."


But MeIM cuts right to the heart of the debate by pointing out that all value systems are not equal; there are some that are more subjective (or arbitrary) than others. Reason and consistancy may be an arbitrary basis to construct a value system, but not nearly as arbitrary a basis as feelings, wishful thinking and/or revelation.

Most value systems (just like science) rely on claims that can be the subject of testing and reason. The result of this testing and reason is that we find some values to be more legitimate than others, and some value systems to be so illegitimate that they should be discarded entirely.

--

Other Comments by Riley

27. Comment #26552 by tylersoap on March 20, 2007 at 9:55 am

OK look, heres the real explaination for this mutant fish:


In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay ? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live.

So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this retard frog-sqirrel, and then that had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog...

And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!

Ms Garison, SouthPark

Other Comments by tylersoap

28. Comment #26618 by Barnacle on March 20, 2007 at 5:43 pm

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

I do agree with the idea that certain value systems are more subjective or arbitrary than others. However, how we decide that is in itself not fixed (eg: not fixed by religion). I think the majority of humans agree on what is valuable or otherwise, to some extent, though anyway.

The point is that when we are acting morally for example, we are not doing it and feeling bad about it or wasting our time like Spaghetti Monster seems to imply. We do it because we 'want' to (for whatever reason). I may 'want' to do something based on a reasoned weighing up of the information I have at hand and a decision that will aid my survival. It doesn't matter how I came to the conclusion and chose my actions - that isn't relevant to the point I was attempting to make...

It doesn't matter that we might not be around to reap the rewards of our actions in the future - we get something out of it right now. In the same way, Spaghetti Monster claims he/she chooses to do things he/she 'wants' to and critisises the rest of us as if we are wasting our time doing 'good' things - simply because he/she doesn't recognise that we, too, do these things because we 'want' to.

My point was simply to explain that we do does impact us NOW even if it doesn't seem to. Even if all I'm doing is deciding that I should believe this article over that, I'll get something out of making what I deem (based on a reasoned evaluation of both if you wish) to be the correct decision.

What I'm saying is not in conflict with what you are saying Riley and MelM. I agree with you completely. It's also not meant to be in conflict with what Spaghetti Monster said - I'm just trying to explain that he/she is incorrect in thinking that actions now that are not obviously of immediate benefit are meaningless.

Other Comments by Barnacle