Warning! Do not download before hiding your IP with a VPN!
Your IP Address is .   Location is
Your Internet Provider can see what you are downloading!  Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
We strongly recommend using a reliable VPN client to hide yourself on the Internet. It's FREE!
Hide me now!
Releaselog

Monkeys more clever than humans, damn!

One would think that the descendent of evolution should be more clever than his predecessor. Wrong! Researchers have shown that young chimps outperform adult humans in a memory test, a Concentration-like game using numerals on a computer screen. “We were very surprised to find this,” Tetsuro Matsuzawa of the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University said. “But it’s a very concrete, simple fact. Young chimps are superior to human adults in a memory task.” Dr. Matsuzawa and a colleague, Sana Inoue, first trained chimps to recognize the numerals 1 through 9 in sequence. Ai, the first chimp trained, an adult female was found with a memory capability equal to that of adult humans.

When the researchers went to see if there was a difference with chimps younger than 6, the animals had a touch screen where scattered numerals appeared for up to two-thirds of a second and were then masked by white squares. With the shortest exposure time, about a fifth of a second, the chimps had an 80 percent accuracy rate, compared with adult humans’ 40 percent. The findings are described in Current Biology. Dr. Matsuzawa speculated that perhaps somewhere back in common evolution, humans and chimps had this ability. But humans lost it because they gained something else, communicating through a complex language. As Ai demonstrates, adult chimps lose the ability, too. Dr. Matsuzawa suggested that as the chimps age, their memory capability is otherwise occupied.

Source: NY Times 

Comments

Feel free to post your Monkeys more clever than humans, damn! torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, depositfiles, uploaded.net, rapidgator, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
  1. HoratioDUKEz
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:00

    lol that’s cause they used Japanese humans…silly Japanese, tricks are for kids.

  2. EoN
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:05

    Read this story yesterday on BBC and it made me think…
    Now for the rest of the human race to do the same and we can beat those chimps :P
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124156.stm

  3. DmenX3
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:05

    @2 yes

    human race = owned

  4. DmenX3
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:07

    i am angry at the title….it is terribly false

  5. nutt3r
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:18

    epic fail

  6. whoelse
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:21

    Monkeys more clever than humans? That’s obvious, just read some of the comments on here.

  7. [NZ]SoniKalien
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:21

    Saw this on the news tonight – the problem is they used a random human and a monkey who was highly trained for this. I bet that same monkey couldn’t ride a bike or anything after all that.

    It all means nothing to me – just hyped up media heiffer guano again.

  8. Trianon
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:23

    most comments are typed here by chimps, too.

    of course not the stupid ones, like #2.

  9. atlas
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:33

    correction: The monkeys did it FASTER, but with the same accuracy. Plus they had specialized training for months. A pigeon could have done the same… maybe even better/faster than the chimp!

  10. Dead Dodo
    December 4th, 2007 | 11:46

    Apes ain’t monkeys. And chimps are apes, u know…

  11. Slyck
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:02

    Yea, “monkeys” will always be more clever as long as idiots can’t even make the simple distinction between apes and monkeys.

  12. oe
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:05

    oe, oe!

  13. rlslog_sucks_ghey_balls
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:08

    even a dead chimp has more intelligence and better English than any staff at rlslog

  14. NuZZ
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:10

    Why are they not testing 6 year old humans with 6 year old chimps if they know that even adult chimps have a similar degradation in memory??

    It is stupid :p.

  15. NuZZ
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:11

    @14
    FU*K OFF!
    You kids are incredibly annoying!

  16. c1re
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:15

    They used students of the university vs the trained ape. And the students knowed the game and wasn’t some random human ^^
    I saw the news on tv and i was suprised how fast these ape was oO.

  17. eitanois
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:19

    @17 -

    But the students were japanese…

  18. X
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:25

    Totally BS experiment.

    First off, cleverness isn’t measured in memory skills.
    Second, the “research” has most likely been ordered by some big “players” to “prove” the theory of evolution.
    Third, rather useless “discovery”… chimps have memory. Doh.
    Fourth, young chimps vs adult humans. That’s as “smartly” done as a test between a Bugatti Veyron and a Ford Focus.

    Conclusions:
    1. Japanese researchers are stupid.
    2. Japanese researchers play stupid when doing “sponsored” research.
    3. Japanese researchers are more stupid than chimps.
    3. “Sponsored” research is always laughable.
    4. Only idiots fall for “sponsored” research results and conclusions.

  19. rlslog_sucks_ghey_balls
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:26

    #16

    take your uncle’s d!ck out of your mouth before you start talking

  20. slapdash
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:29

    @19
    totally agreed…this is bs experiment..

  21. X
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:33

    I wonder what smart a$$ conclusions they would’ve reached if the test was like this: 6 years old humans vs. adult monkeys.
    Oh, that wouldn’t have served their purposes…

  22. seriously dude
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:40

    Lol, these jap people always crank me up, hehe.

  23. dave
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:43

    This news is a bit old. It is known allready a few years ago. still is funny to see monkeys being VERY fast in pointing numbers in the correct order with its fingers on a touch screen. In a split second they see it.we humans need much more time to do that.

  24. X
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:50

    @24: “In a split second they see it.we humans need much more time to do that.” – have you thought about this: they’re animals. Animals with slow reflexes are dead animals.

    Have you ever seen squirrel fights? :) They’re fast! Faster than any monkey could ever hope to be.

  25. ZeN
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:50

    Meh….. I is smarter than monkeys, my kindy teacher told me so… to be honest though I think its just that we have more on our minds.. while we perform the test theres probably a million things going through our minds other than what numbers appear, whereas apes are most likely just thinking “banana, banana, banana… oh numbers… banana”

  26. Bendeee
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:51

    Bees could have higher memory than some adults.
    They memorize where they can find flowers to collect food.
    They also can coomunicate very well, they can describe where they can find food to each other, by “dancing”.
    Elephanants, Birds, and other animals migrating probaby have also hogh memory.

    Humans are superior in the average of all skills, maybe. most of them.

  27. cempaka
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:56

    ‘Monkeys more clever than humans, damn!’
    The title itself is wrong dude !
    Those chimps are better in selective memory tasks.
    Doesn’t mean they are ‘more clever’ or ‘more intelligent’.
    Babies are better than adults in certain ‘recognition tasks’.
    Doesn’t mean they are more intelligent than adults.
    Kids brain is geared more towards ‘recognizing’ and ‘remembering’
    As we grow our brain is geared more towards ‘understanding’ and ‘creativity’.
    Or something like that !.

  28. X
    December 4th, 2007 | 12:56

    Edit for #26: replace “monkey” with “ape”.

  29. Bloopie
    December 4th, 2007 | 13:01

    Monkeys 1
    Humans 0

  30. cempaka
    December 4th, 2007 | 13:08

    Didnt remember to include example…LOL
    Kids tend to ‘remember’ or ‘by heart’ the multiplication tables.
    Adults rarely ‘remember’ or ‘by heart’ them rather ‘understand’ how to calculate/multiply.

  31. danifer
    December 4th, 2007 | 13:19

    I’m a monkey on internet!

  32. cempaka
    December 4th, 2007 | 13:20

    Give a chimp a knife and teach it to cut an apple.
    Dont think it can immediately relate that the knife can be use to cut other things too.

  33. dash21
    December 4th, 2007 | 13:28

    Planet of the apes, anyone ?
    Hehehe

  34. X
    December 4th, 2007 | 13:43

    I really wonder what’s this sort of news doing on RLSlog.

    It’s not tech related, it is total BS, has a wrong title (the purposes for that can be understood) and doesn’t really have any connection to games whatsoever.

    Anyone know the difference between the expert and the generalist?…
    The expert knows more and more about less and less. The generalist knows less and less about more and more.
    The expert tends towards knowing everything about a few things.
    The generalist tends towards knowing nothing about everything.

    RLSlog, please don’t become a generalist website. That would hitting yourself over the head wit a big a$$ brick. You’re already doing it, but don’t do hit yourself harder.

  35. X
    December 4th, 2007 | 13:44

    Sorry for the spelling mistakes, I’m in a hurry.

  36. BlueEyedDevil
    December 4th, 2007 | 14:07

    So are these chimps straight outta Compton, Detroit, Birmingham or where? Grin.

  37. Boognish
    December 4th, 2007 | 14:34

    @8
    FAIL

    “Even with six months of training, three students failed to catch up to the three young chimps, Matsuzawa said”

  38. busted
    December 4th, 2007 | 14:40

    Nothing new – just read comments here or at youtube.

  39. IC
    December 4th, 2007 | 14:45

    After reading most online forums, including this one, proves these findings..

    ;)

  40. otli
    December 4th, 2007 | 14:47

    Or maybe it’s because humans didn’t evolute from monkeys xD

  41. otli
    December 4th, 2007 | 14:48

    Oh, and btw, you’d better change the spam protection to something simpler, or soon enough only monkeys will be able to post here!

  42. Fractal
    December 4th, 2007 | 14:59

    @19, agreed.

    For one thing, it’s easier to remember things where you are focussed. A friend of mine has a photographic memory, she doesn’t know why but says apart from that, she’s not that smart.

    The chimps don’t have a whole mess of other sh1t in their heads to distract them while performing the exercise. If they used “idiot savaunts” against the chimps, the savaunts would win hands down.

    So does that mean savaunts are “smarter” than the rest of the human race? This study is complete BS.

    Either that, or the researchers DID NOT use the word “smarter”, it’s just the media being f-wits again and not giving us the real story.

  43. Slayman
    December 4th, 2007 | 15:03

    While i recognise the test to not be up to par with real testing.
    It shows that young chimpanzees’ brain functions as well or even better than a human brain of later age in some very specific test.
    All that shows is that chimpanzees have a certain grade of intelligence.
    You BS whiner: Intelligence is far more than communicating through language or recognising images from memory
    it’s for example the capacity of things that can be performed with training, like speaking or drawing.
    I too disagree with the make-up of the article above, it just says apes are mor clever than humans which is wrong.
    Certain abilities come to apes as easy as they come to us, would be a good compromise.

    And finally to the ones babbling about “proving the Theory of evolution”
    Damn to you believe in Intelligent design? What a moronic excuse for a theory.
    Evolution Theory is proven right every single time a skeleton or a new species is found.
    If you could be able to reliably and scientifically disprove it you would become like the Uber-Scientist since Darwin!

  44. nitromeatbag
    December 4th, 2007 | 15:21

    Hi I am a human.. I enjoy eating worms from the ground, sniffing other people’s asses, itching my nuts at the beach. I like to chew flea’s from my wife’s hairy back, and oh yeah fling poo at the monkey’s.. lets all go ape sh*t

  45. fr34k
    December 4th, 2007 | 15:53

    @ slayman

    Evolution is not proven right, get your facts straight.

    And Darwin was an idiot.

    if u wanna know what I mean. Then watch this

    part 1

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8506668136396723343

    part 2

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6568107389365915765

  46. December 4th, 2007 | 15:59

    nice article

  47. Hypper
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:03

    There are many animals with skills better than us.

  48. X
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:29

    @50: don’t try to wake up Mr. slayman, he’s sleeping like a baby – and might get angry if woken up. :P

  49. ptapzu
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:31

    DOH, Martin, we aren’t descended from chimps, we share common ancestor.

  50. Wang Kit
    December 4th, 2007 | 16:53

    Spank that monkey!

  51. Kilix
    December 4th, 2007 | 17:37

    “One would think that the descendent of evolution should be more clever than his predecessor. ”

    That is not how evolution works…

  52. nexus
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:42

    “Monkeys more clever than humans, damn!”…

    except the ones that work at Micro$oft :P

  53. John Brown
    December 4th, 2007 | 18:55

    @14 LOL THAT’S FUNNY DEAD MONKEYS SMARTER THEN RLSLOG STAFF WAS ROFLCAKE!!!!!!!

  54. arnodl
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:01

    they probably compared to adult yanks.

  55. Reality
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:04

    Seems like there’s a lot of posts that think humans are far superior.

    I’d like to see how a team of these chimps would do in a contest between a team of humans, such as “W” Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. Talk about competition.

    Any comments on the outcome?

  56. Spot
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:08

    The are some very insecure people on this thread. The word clever has nothing to do with the researchers or the study “Working memory of numerals in chimpanzees”. Clever is what the site admin put up. The fact that many can not figure out this simple fact may mean that chimps are more clever than a lot of humans.

  57. andy
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:40

    when you design a test for monkeys to win at, you cant expect fair results. have a monkey take a grade 3 math test, he’d probably eat the damn paper.

    “lol that’s cause they used Japanese humans…silly Japanese, tricks are for kids”

    so funny

  58. 1an
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:43

    o well someday human will be owned, that the straight facts, by AI or other species, in fact most species whoever exist on this planet have been vanished, Mankind is a great succes of Mother Nature, but is will be no guarantee that we will stand as superior forever .. our time will come

    One moore thing at least evolution have proof, tons of skeletton, fossil, millions pieces fact from geology, yay even genetic given evolution the lead

    Intelligent design well is has some kind of magical power that created everthing, ?

  59. LeSlovene
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:47

    What I found surprising is that I heard of that fact something like 10 years ago! People should look things up before they start expensive and useless studies…

  60. WAH
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:57

    Just because there’s evidence for biological evolution does not mean that it must prove the evolution theory. By conflating them, it sounds meaningful but is actually meaningless. Mind you that the evolution biology academic curriculum generally doesn’t require the teachings of the nuances of the philosophy of science, even aspiring PhD’s.

  61. costa200
    December 4th, 2007 | 19:59

    @61 LeSlovene

    It’s always like this… Stupid mainstream media…

  62. LucidHarmony
    December 4th, 2007 | 20:23

    Those humans need to pick up Brain Age, it helps a lot. I can memorize the placement of 25 numbers now almost 100% of the time :D If you watch the videos of the tests you will find that these tests prove absolutely nothing but that the people they used are slow.

    There are no controls for this “experiment” and is therefore holds no scientific merit, it is trivial.

  63. Tim
    December 4th, 2007 | 20:29

    Damn, I know I’ve missed a few cognitive psychology lectures this semester – but I hadn’t heard that memory research is now delegated to the technology department. I better get to class.

  64. Eason
    December 4th, 2007 | 20:38

    I agree about the misleading title (the tests try to establish memory capacity, not intelligence), but it’s an interesting experiment neverless. Of course, it would’ve been more sensible if they have used “trained” human experimentees too, to account for the fact that the chimps are trained.

  65. Bneknm
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:05

    Some points, Chimps are more intelligent than the average inbred American (roughly 3/4 of the US population) and the Chinese. Homo saphiens from the other countries are more intelligent.

  66. December 4th, 2007 | 21:19

    OH NOES MARTIN YOU STARTED ANOTHER CHRISTIANS VS THE WORLD TROLL BAIT ! STOP IT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS CRAP ! JESUS IS A FAIRY TALE AND SO IS THE BIBLE – LIKE THE TOOTH FAIRY

  67. Wang Qurdaddyov
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:19

    rlslog is run by chimps :D

  68. Spur Minurface
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:21

    @69

    no, chimps would make a better job.

  69. HoratioDUKEz
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:34

    #47, Bruce Lipton is a smart guy and has some good ideas, but by calling Darwin an idiot just because he wasn’t perfectly right…..that makes you and idiot. He was one of the first humans ever to realize that the bible is full of crap, and your gonna just shut him down because he didn’t get it perfect the first time. It was the 1800′s what do you expect, he made a lot of really amazing revelations just by observation. NOOB

  70. Jizzmaster_Jeff
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:41

    “One would think that the descendent of evolution should be more clever than his predecessor.”

    – damn, my chimp writes better English.

  71. ........
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:52

    who ever believes in the evolution theory is dumb
    i cant see no monkeys/apes turning into humans….. and apes still exsist so they didnt turn into humans….
    use some common sense noobs

  72. Tim
    December 4th, 2007 | 21:59

    @73

    Let us know when you pass the 5th grade.

  73. Matt
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:12

    All they did was use their dumbest monkey against Bush, and the monkey won.

  74. King of Cycling
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:13

    #73

    I’m sorry you’ve had creationism shoved down your thoughtless mind. The secret is we are almost the same, if you read evolution you might understand how life on earth has become how it is today and how we are not that different to other animals.

    - pig heart valve can be used in human, therefore human = animal.

  75. Redem
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:13

    Way to blow things out of all proportion, commenters.

    The study merely shows that young chimps are better able to quickly recognise and sort symbols than adult humans are. Are you so stuck on the notion that humans are “superior” on all mental tasks that you cannot accept this?

    Anything more than a simple conclusion is more than likely the work of journalists and political commentators, as well as the paranoid.

  76. simpsons225
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:16

    Stupid adults, give me that monkey and I’ll pwn it any time!

  77. Redem
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:17

    “i cant see no monkeys/apes turning into humans….. and apes still exsist so they didnt turn into humans….
    use some common sense noobs”

    Ahhh, the joy of seeing such ignorance is allowed to survive schools.

    Seeing as you have no idea what the current state of the theory of evolution states, or describes… why should we care what your opinion on it is? You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Just like my opinions on the intricacies of high speed electronics have no bearing on the reality of the subject.

  78. King of Cycling
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:20

    Obviously humans are not superior in all forms, sometimes their ignorance is the most unintelligent concept in all species. The ability to destroy life and not reverse the process.

  79. God
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:20

    creationists are cool

    just dont let them have any children and cut off their hands and tongue at birth

    let the f*ckers type with their feet

  80. Prophet Mohammed
    December 4th, 2007 | 22:25

    Word Up God

  81. X
    December 4th, 2007 | 23:16

    LOL @ the exclusive evolutionist people.

    Three questions:
    1. Who or what discovered all the “proof” supporting evolution? I’m interested in their beliefs.
    2. Did you discover anything – any idea that doesn’t use the proofs from #1 as ground – by yourself?
    3. Have you ever head about Milgram’s experiment? Or about experiments involving the power of the situation and the power of a group?

    @60: “Intelligent design well is has some kind of magical power that created everthing, ?” Does evolution have some kind of magical power that created everything?…

    PS: While reading the evolutionist arguments in these comments it’s easy to see their level. It’s also possible to see that they tend to slightly contradict one another – this is harder to notice.

  82. XY
    December 4th, 2007 | 23:24

    #71
    “He was one of the first humans ever to realize that the bible is full of crap, and your gonna just shut him down because he didn’t get it perfect the first time. It was the 1800’s what do you expect, he made a lot of really amazing revelations just by observation.”

    You do realize that the kids of your kids of your kids of your kids of your kids will say the same about our time and your theory, don’t you?

    I don’t get what’s so amazing in being utterly wrong and twisting the minds of so many future generations with “amazing” falsities… Maybe I should write something saying that humans are neither evolved or created. We came here from a galaxy far far away and during the ruff landing we hurt our heads and entered a state of complete amnesia, thus forgetting our past.
    Boy, what story that would be! And I can bet that I’ll get tons of support for it. :P

  83. WAH
    December 4th, 2007 | 23:25

    Alright. Let’s see who’s generally better in these tests:

    Smartest apes vs Smartest_Human
    Smartest_apes vs Average Human
    Smartest_apes vs Stupidest Human

    Average apes vs Smartest_Human
    Average apes vs Average_Human
    Average_apes vs Stupidest Human

    Stupidest apes vs Smartest_Human
    Stupidest apes vs Average_Human
    Stupidest apes vs Stupidest_Human

    Apes: -3
    Humans: 6

    That should settle it.

  84. hikaricore
    December 5th, 2007 | 00:26

    I’ll wait for the aXXo release.

  85. Reality
    December 5th, 2007 | 00:35

    I think this thread proves that human evolution peaked in the first half of the 1900′s. Modern science/medicine has allowed truly ignorant people to live long enough to breed and foster this subspecies of humans called “intelligent design believers” that we have represented in this thread.

  86. CooPs
    December 5th, 2007 | 00:44

    Since when is cleverness equal to the amount of numbers you can remember? Then damn my computer is really cleaver, because it can “remember” 160 billion bytes, while I can only remember maybe 5 or 6 bytes before i forget them.

    What this study instead shows, is that monkeys are worse than humans to filter out information that is irrelevant, and have a “less optimized” brain.

  87. NMD
    December 5th, 2007 | 00:52

    @87 YES!!!!!

  88. WAH
    December 5th, 2007 | 01:10

    LOL @ “evolutionists”
    More than enough have a common habit of equivocating biological “evolution” with the theory of “evolution” due to their lack of logic and critical thinking. That’s why we could see their logical fallacies more often than creationists, like inconsistencies in their arguments.

    “Monkeys more clever than humans”
    Too bad they’re wasting their “cleverness” on swinging trees, eating bananas, and picking their butts all day.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25V9KPuAqxM

  89. hibby
    December 5th, 2007 | 01:11

    I’ll say one thing about chimps, they’re a lot less whiney than you lot – what a bunch of moaners. :(

    Monkeys are sexier too: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X9zLK70K-_w :D

  90. Mr.Monocle the Chimp
    December 5th, 2007 | 03:18

    @83 “Who or what discovered the “proof” of evolution”…Common sense is the answer to your question, as we share roughly 95% of the same DNA markers with our Chimp cousins.

    Lets turn the looking glass around at creationists, Who or what discovered “proof” of god/creationism? Nobody? Got nothing? That’s what I thought.

    We haven’t changed in hundreds of years because as it stands we have no reason to evolve any further, as a genus only evolves for SURVIVAL. It’s not just a random occurrence as most creationist like to claim, it takes very specific conditions for evolution to occur.
    There are some animals they found in underwater caves, locked off in their own little biodome for hundreds of years. They found lizards with eye sockets but no eyes, just empty holes where the eyes once existed. Reason being: for hundreds of years they had no light, and had to evolve to live without it. They lost the need for eyes as they became a weakness and liability without light for their sight.

    Maybe creationists will start to have kids without eyes too, that way they will be blind to the truth just like their parents. (GG)

  91. help desk chimp
    December 5th, 2007 | 04:06

    #81 quick answers to X:

    1. Charles Darwin <- read his books, the field of Biology, activists in the theory of Evolution Richard Dawkins and many scientists.

    2. When I was in school we had a class on dissection. After removing the rats skin i came to notice the insides were exactly like that of a human on a smaller scale. I now see the pattern of evolution in many things, such as the cochlea of an ear that controls balance in humans, cats etc.. looks like the structure of a shell. I find life has a pattern and that pattern can evolve in time with the environment. In addition if we are a creation, then we are not a perfect one. So many inconsistencies and people who are sick or born irregular. I find it hard to believe and once again the environment proves the mutation of genes such as having kids in a radioactive field.

    3. yes I have. humans have survival instincts as well and are a social animal.

    Intelligent design is simply unintelligent. I can’t believe people are still arguing about this, it is common knowledge how life evolves on Earth and possibly elsewhere.

  92. troof
    December 5th, 2007 | 05:25

    Hey can i be an editor too? I can read Engadget and re-post their stuff just like you!!

  93. King of Cycling
    December 5th, 2007 | 08:52
  94. tucker
    December 5th, 2007 | 09:04

    wheres teh torrent?

  95. ........
    December 5th, 2007 | 10:12

    you guys are so sad…..
    try think beyond your noses

  96. Prophet Mohammed
    December 5th, 2007 | 11:31

    Bow down to me the one and only God!

    I created creationists!

    I created Darwin!

    I created chimps!

    I created rlslog, yeh ok that one was a mistake.

  97. X
    December 5th, 2007 | 12:00

    #93
    ““Who or what discovered the “proof” of evolution”…Common sense is the answer to your question, as we share roughly 95% of the same DNA markers with our Chimp cousins.”

    The idiocy of your answer speaks for itself.
    It’s funny to see evolutionists talk about creationists starting wars when it’s evolutionists who have the most angry tone around here.

    It’s sad, really.

    PS: Damn, it means that my Mercedes has BMW as ancestor, as they share roughly 98% of parts…
    PPS: The question for idiots: “Who were the people who discovered the DNA similarities, bones, etc?” People who support evolution theory of course.

    Note: Brainwashing really seems to work!

  98. Sajonara
    December 5th, 2007 | 13:08

    #100 X

    well common sense points towards finding an answer, which is what the scientists and intellectual thinkers drain effort toward. With lateral thinking we find a timeline and mutation of life as we know it. It’s idiocy to just accept an answer because someone told you, despit it being far from logical or likely.

    yeah well its the other way around really, your Mercedes is the progenitor of the BMW as Merc were the first to make the motorised car.

    Its interesting you point that out! The only reason the people who discovered DNA, work in paleontology and other fields of science support evolution is because the more they work in the field the more they understand how life works. I’m sure you would to if you went to university and study these concepts, its not that hard to understand and life becomes more beautiful when you see beyond the hollow thinking behind creationism.

  99. Sajonara
    December 5th, 2007 | 13:12
  100. creationist
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:17

    ok evolutionists, if you are so clever answer this question: which came first, the a$$hole or the turd?

  101. Worthingcollegefool
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:49

    This monkey can kick our alls asses!!!

  102. northernmyths
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:54

    our true ancestor i the noble ash

  103. Worthingcollegefool
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:56

    l2p n00b!

  104. WAH
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:56

    LOL. Even Richard Dawkins admits there’s an appearance of design and purpose but he says it’s merely an illusion because evolutionists explain these things. IOW, nature’s really fooling you. And that’s what ALL the other evolutionists are telling you. There’s a grand deception out there. Amazing! The times we live in today that people would SAY that, right?

  105. northernmyths
    December 5th, 2007 | 14:56

    Das Leben ist kein Pwnyhof!

  106. WAH
    December 5th, 2007 | 15:33

    LOL. The arguments on this board are arguing over two totally different things that are fallaciously treated as one general concept. You guys need to establish the correct meaning of “evolution”.

    Life ain’t easy.

    “The only reason the people who discovered DNA, work in paleontology and other fields of science support evolution is because the more they work in the field the more they understand how life works.”
    Yes. They support biological evolution not the theory because there’s no evidence for it.

  107. X
    December 5th, 2007 | 19:40

    @Sajonara: What amuses me is that Mr. Dawkins is as blind and as stubborn as those that he accuses for being blind and stubborn. Is anyone under the impression that only religious people can have fundamentalist ideas? Well, in my opinion Mr. Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist.

    He does not see that he is just as convinced of his own truth as the ones who he criticize are of theirs. In his mind nothing could make him think he is wrong. He doesn’t seem like a nice man when he’s riding his hobbyhorse.

    In the end it’s funny to blindly believe in non-believing and accuse those believing in something for *believing*.

    There are countless scientific evidences in the scientific community that simply blow away the evolution theory. But those evidences are immediately dismissed and fought against, in the name of belief.

    What’s more funny is The Central Dogma of medicine. Science and dogma put together? And I’ve seen Dawkins in one video saying that science and religion could *never* mix or live together. Yet science uses such terms.

    dogma

    1 a: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
    2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

    Oh, well… evolution theory is one of those things which enters your mind when you embrace the thinking, “proof” and values of a select group of “others” as your own.

  108. Sajonara
    December 5th, 2007 | 22:05

    WAH –

    Evolution is taught in most schools around the world, unless you go to some freak religious school that illegaly hides this information and blindly puts arguments forward that there is no evidence of evolution. You can argue a long time and keep firing that evolution is just a theory, well i’ll stun you in your tracks. Because evolution is also a fact. To prove a theory in science you have to prove it by experiment, read about the fruit flies experiment. You can agree its hard to prove evolution by experiment when life took so many millions of years to evolve. Simply can’t do it just yet, but in the future I’m sure someone will computer model it with the same environment variables to this day. The other proof/fact is that if you travel around the world you’ll notice the same animals but with slightly different features evolved to the environment. Read about life on the Galapagos islands.

    I can understand R. Dawkin’s frustration as he’s professes in genetic biology, and understand evolution better than most. What annoys R. Dawkins is the thousands of active fundamentalist creationist and little protest from the other side. Why? because in America its culturally not acceptable to be advertising you don’t believe in the doctrine. I can see why he’s angered, when you have to vote to kick out creationism in classrooms. He at least has the courage to go to the middle east and talk to fundamentalist muslims, jews and christians without starting a fight. If you call him a fundamental athiest, well he’s at least nicer to listen to than a religious one such a muslim one who thinks we should all die if we don’t follow the Koran. Yeah, great ethics and moral from your religious teachings.

    At least from biology and continuing the study of evolution we can make new discoveries in the field that can help human kind and not the other way around. Such as going back to the 16thCentury and burning people because they were posessed demons (ref: Witch burnings at Salem).

  109. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 00:10

    Sajonara: I can see at least six logical fallacies in your argument.
    #1 Tautology: since it’s common knowledge that there is a factual aspect to ‘evolution’, your assertion that ‘evolution’ is also a fact is actually meaningless when it sounds meaningful.
    #2 Equivocation/Conflation: You’re subtly treating two totally different evolutionary ideas as one scientific ‘paradigm’ rather than clearly defining by terminology which part of ‘evolution’ is distinctively fact and theory.
    #3. Falsifiability: the scientific reliability of an idea is the test’s actual conductivity under today’s scientific knowledge. Future experiments to test the theory won’t automatically prove it. Like geocentricism, it could be falsified too.
    #4. Overgeneralization: You’ve generalized creationism to have a ‘secret agenda against the world’ to a degree that apparently even little 11 year olds reading the story of Noah and believing it are involved in this conspiracy to destroy the world.
    #5. Genetic fallacy: you’re evaluating the ideas of evolution and creation based on its origin or history rather than its present—merits or demerits, even going far as to fallaciously argue that its history affect its present value.
    #6. Straw man: your argument that religious fundamentalism is worse off than scientific fundamentalism is weak. They’re both equally potent, especially in the hands of the corrupt. Even fascist movements seem to ground a part of their views from a biological evolutionary perspective to justify ethnic/cultural/racial purity, superiority and/or inferiority.

  110. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 00:13

    Sajonara: LOL. I can see at least six logical fallacies in your argument.
    #1 Tautology: since it’s common knowledge that there is a factual aspect to ‘evolution’, your assertion that ‘evolution’ is also a fact is actually meaningless when it sounds meaningful.
    #2 Equivocation/Conflation: You’re subtly treating two totally different evolutionary ideas as one scientific ‘paradigm’ rather than clearly defining by terminology which part of ‘evolution’ is distinctively fact and theory.
    #3. Falsifiability: the scientific reliability of an idea is the test’s actual conductivity under today’s scientific knowledge. Future experiments to test the theory won’t automatically prove it. Like geocentricism, it could be falsified too.
    #4. Overgeneralization: You’ve generalized creationism to have a ‘secret agenda against the world’ to a degree that apparently even little 11 year olds reading the story of Noah and believing it are involved in this conspiracy to destroy the world.
    #5. Genetic fallacy: you’re evaluating the ideas of evolution and creation based on its origin or history rather than its present—merits or demerits, even going far as to fallaciously argue that its history affect its present value.
    #6. Straw man: your argument that religious fundamentalism is worse off than scientific fundamentalism is weak. They’re both equally potent, especially in the hands of the corrupt. Even fascist movements seem to ground a part of their views from a biological evolutionary perspective to justify ethnic/cultural/racial purity, superiority and/or inferiority.

    Your logic is all screwed up.

  111. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 00:17

    Sajonara: LOL. I can see at least six logical fallacies in your argument.
    #1 Tautology: since it’s common knowledge that there is a factual aspect to ‘evolution’, your assertion that ‘evolution’ is also a fact is actually meaningless when it sounds meaningful.
    #2 Equivocation/Conflation: You’re subtly treating two totally different evolutionary ideas as one scientific ‘paradigm’ rather than clearly defining by terminology which part of ‘evolution’ is distinctively fact and theory.
    #3. Falsifiability: the scientific reliability of an idea is the test’s actual conductivity under today’s scientific knowledge. Future experiments to test the theory won’t automatically prove it. Like geocentricism, it could be falsified too.
    #4. Overgeneralization: You’ve generalized creationism to have a ‘secret agenda against the world’ to a degree that apparently even all religious little 11 year olds reading the story of Noah and believing it are involved in this conspiracy to destroy the world.
    #5. Genetic fallacy: you’re evaluating the ideas of evolution and creation based on its origin or history rather than its present—merits or demerits, even going far as to fallaciously argue that its history affects its present value.
    #6. Straw man: your argument that religious fundamentalism is worse off than scientific fundamentalism is weak. They’re both equally potent, especially in the hands of the corrupt. Even fascist movements seem to ground a part of their views from a biological evolutionary perspective to justify ethnic/cultural/racial purity, superiority and/or inferiority.

    Your logic is all screwed up.

  112. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 00:18

    Delete my last three posts including this one.

  113. Redem
    December 6th, 2007 | 05:18

    “LOL. Even Richard Dawkins admits there’s an appearance of design and purpose but he says it’s merely an illusion because evolutionists explain these things. IOW, nature’s really fooling you.”
    It would be mroe accurate to say that appearances can be decieving. Which they can. The sun certainly APPEARS to travel around the earth, rather than vice versa. It’s not true though.

    That statement is essentially the entire reason for sicence, because things don’t always work out in the way they first appear to.

    “Yes. They support biological evolution not the theory because there’s no evidence for it.”
    Apart from all the evidence, of course.

    “In the end it’s funny to blindly believe in non-believing and accuse those believing in something for *believing*.”
    Strawman, if you had ever read his works, then you would know that he does not “believe in non-believing”, as you put it.

    “There are countless scientific evidences in the scientific community that simply blow away the evolution theory. But those evidences are immediately dismissed and fought against, in the name of belief.”
    Uh-huh. Care to present some? These things are always a lotta fun. :)

    “What’s more funny is The Central Dogma of medicine. Science and dogma put together? And I’ve seen Dawkins in one video saying that science and religion could *never* mix or live together. Yet science uses such terms.”
    Medicine is not a science as such, more like engineering. And what the hell is ” The Central Dogma of medicine”? Google reports no results.

    I have yet to see the word Dogma applied to science by anyone who’s not a creationist. funny that. Seems like an attempt to paint us with the same brush as is applied to you.

    “#1 Tautology: since it’s common knowledge that there is a factual aspect to ‘evolution’, your assertion that ‘evolution’ is also a fact is actually meaningless when it sounds meaningful.”
    That makes is a statement of fact, then, not a tautology.
    Which means an argument using the conclusion as a premise.

    “#2 Equivocation/Conflation: You’re subtly treating two totally different evolutionary ideas as one scientific ‘paradigm’ rather than clearly defining by terminology which part of ‘evolution’ is distinctively fact and theory.”
    The two are easily confused, to be fair.

    “#3. Falsifiability: the scientific reliability of an idea is the test’s actual conductivity under today’s scientific knowledge. Future experiments to test the theory won’t automatically prove it. Like geocentricism, it could be falsified too.”
    Why is this a bad thing? Also, it’s not a fallacy, as claimed.
    It’s simply how science works, to be a useful explanation it must conceivably be proveable wrong. Which evolution is. Modern rabbits fossilised in devaronian rocks, being the classic example. That we have NEVER found a SINGLE modern animal fossilised in any ancient sediments, despite large scale efforts for over a century to find some, is evidence fo the trustworthyness of evolution.

    “#4. Overgeneralization: You’ve generalized creationism to have a ’secret agenda against the world’ to a degree that apparently even little 11 year olds reading the story of Noah and believing it are involved in this conspiracy to destroy the world.”
    Two words “Wedge strategy”.
    :p

    “#6. Straw man: your argument that religious fundamentalism is worse off than scientific fundamentalism is weak. They’re both equally potent, especially in the hands of the corrupt.”
    That’s not a strawman, then.

    As for “scientific fundamentalism”… I have yet to see someone killed for not accepting quantum loop gravity as the one true GUT.

  114. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 09:22

    “That statement is essentially the entire reason for sicence”
    It is also a very subjective statement as well. Today that might be the reason, tomorrow it may be different. Don’t miss the titanic shift that’s happening in the history of science from the days of Isaac Newton to the days of Richard Dawkins.

    “Apart from all the evidence, of course.”
    Evidence for what? Seems to me you’re subtly inferring evidence for biological evolution as evidence for the GTE, which is conflation. Evidence for biological evolution, not ‘general theory’, otherwise there would be no experiments to test the theory, and no experiments means the idea is useless.

    “Strawman, if you had ever read his works, then you would know that he does not “believe in non-believing”, as you put it….Uh-huh. Care to present some? These things are always a lotta fun….And what the hell is ” The Central Dogma of medicine””
    maybe you should address the person who actually said those things. You’re guilty for deceitful accusation once again. But I guess I’ll put my two cents in.

    You want to know if there’s scientific evidence that blows away the theory of evolution? Well, personally, I wouldn’t say ‘blow away the theory’ but rather today’s scientific knowledge or simply lack of evidence that presents an obstacle to the theory of evolution. Maybe X is referring to the law of biogenesis or 2nd law of thermodynamics as obstacles for the theory “to circumvent and create an alternative law.” LOL. Or simply the absence of evidence for the theory. For instance, we’ve never observed an actual human evolve from a ‘warm little pond’ or for us to repeatedly create life from non-life or artificially mutate a fruit fly to a human, which would be testable evidence to prove the GTE. While the scientific evidence we have now proves the biological evolutionary mechanisms behind the theoretical claims the historical claim itself is neither scientifically proven or scientifically disproven. Evolutionists are doing all they can to prove the theory by experiments, which requires humans to create life to prove it and that IMO is a tall order to take on and requires a leap of faith to say that one day we’ll prove the GTE. But God won’t let that happen and soon evolutionary theory will fade away as a fad. As a biblical theist, I don’t need scientific evidence to disprove a theory that is speculatively an unfalsifiable historical claim based on unfalsifiable philosophical assumptions. IOW, I don’t need scientific evidences to prove/disprove historical claims. All I need is just historical-legal proof that God created everything from scratch to historically disprove the historical claim of GTE and we find that in many types of ‘creation’ accounts in all religions, if not most, throughout history.

    the central dogma of medicine. LOL. that’s funny but maybe it’s a loose terminology of the medicine industry’s deceitful tactic to control society. Maybe. I don’t know exactly what X means by that. But you’ll understand my POV once you watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOEB05_3-p0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVZBkelUft8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgwX0339DH4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTALoEHxjQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZOImPPL5bo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isghdWXd4Lw
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn51CEHzft4

    “That makes is a statement of fact, then, not a tautology.”
    A tautology is a statement that is true under all circumstances, such that the statement carries no meaning. The correct way to respond to it is to charge it for it’s meaninglessness, not its integrity. In fairness of his argument he was simply stating a well known fact that doesn’t help his case or negate mine in any sense at all. That’s like saying, “Doing wrong is bad.” So?? It’s true but meaningless although it sounds meaningful.

    “The two are easily confused, to be fair.”
    Of course, and most evolutionists I see online appear to deceitfully, knowingly or unknowingly, switch the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, “bait-and-switch,” is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this “evolution,” then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. On top of that, they and creationists as well don’t bother to lay the foundational meanings of the word evolution before hand and argue over two different things.

    “Why is this a bad thing?”
    I wasn’t necessarily claiming that falsifiability is in itself is a logical fallacy but it is when you’re misconstruing the meanings or switching them in defining ideas as falsifiable by an experiment’s conceivability or by its tests’ conductivity under *tomorrow*’s scientific knowledge. In fact, falsifiability is the lifeblood of science because it is from the experiments’ capability to be tested under *today*’s scientific knowledge that new experiments are tested, new discoveries made, and new science developed.

    “Two words “Wedge strategy”.”
    Two words “evolutionary dogma.” NCSE, National Science Foundation, Dr Jerry Bergman all bear this proof.

    You are a materialistic scientist, a uniformitarian of philosophical naturalism, a perfect example of the atheistic bias present within the scientific community, and a typical biological historical evolutionist who uses the common logical fallacy of conflation, whose logic unfalsifiably presupposes the GTE is fact (when it is just a theory) simply because there is a great deal of evidence for biological evolution. The reason materialism must be overthrown is because of its implications of our culture (abortion and human rights) and because it is philosophically inferior to Biblical Christianity. Read Armstrong and Craig’s “A debate between an atheist and creationist”; it’s interesting.

    “That’s not a strawman, then.”
    Mine isn’t a strawman but his is. Now his is since he’s using an argument weaker than the fact that there are ‘fundamentalism’ in the science community as much as it is in any other ‘community’ political to religious.

    “scientific fundamentalism”
    Scientific dogma. People have been abused, fired and received death threats for simply being involved in creationism/ Intelligent design to teaching the two model approach.

    “I have yet to see someone killed for not accepting quantum loop gravity as the one true GUT.”
    Read the previous comment. And…
    But we have seen Jews, blacks and minorities, such as myself, who were killed in the past for being biologically inferior or less evolved than the perpetrators or being despised upon by ‘supremacy groups’ and ‘fascist movements’ who use biological evolution to justify that we are a disease to be ridden of.

  115. WAH
    December 6th, 2007 | 09:27

    …but that’s a lie.

  116. Redem
    December 7th, 2007 | 01:55

    “Seems to me you’re subtly inferring evidence for biological evolution as evidence for the GTE, which is conflation. Evidence for biological evolution, not ‘general theory’, otherwise there would be no experiments to test the theory, and no experiments means the idea is useless.”

    You’re artificially splitting the theory of evolution into two parts, and calling it conflation when the rest of us use the proper term.

    You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t go along with your terminology, and instead stick with the real scientific terms.

    “maybe you should address the person who actually said those things. You’re guilty for deceitful accusation once again. But I guess I’ll put my two cents in.”
    I was addressing that person, they simply posted in between the two posts of yours I was responding to.

    “Well, personally, I wouldn’t say ‘blow away the theory’ but rather today’s scientific knowledge or simply lack of evidence that presents an obstacle to the theory of evolution.”
    An unsupported claim, and unsupportable. Plenty of evidence in the fossil record, in genetic tracers, in behavioural, physiological and biochemical similarities, and various other lines of evidence. All amply supporting the theory.

    “Maybe X is referring to the law of biogenesis or 2nd law of thermodynamics as obstacles for the theory “to circumvent and create an alternative law.” LOL.”
    Neither of which are honest criticisms of the thoery of evolution. One displays a grave misunderstanding of the theory, and the other displays a total lack of understanding of thermodynamics.
    Any scientist would laugh in your face for bringing this up.

    “For instance, we’ve never observed an actual human evolve from a ‘warm little pond’ or for us to repeatedly create life from non-life or artificially mutate a fruit fly to a human, which would be testable evidence to prove the GTE.”
    If we did see those it would disprovbe the theory of evolution, not support it.
    We also can’t see a river carve a vally, or a glacier for that matter. Doesn’t make it any less scientifically supported for that. Luckily we have these nice historical records in the form of fossils, which do support evolution.

    “While the scientific evidence we have now proves the biological evolutionary mechanisms behind the theoretical claims the historical claim itself is neither scientifically proven or scientifically disproven”
    As proven as any historical claims of gravity are.

    “Evolutionists are doing all they can to prove the theory by experiments, which requires humans to create life to prove it and that IMO is a tall order to take on and requires a leap of faith to say that one day we’ll prove the GTE.”
    You’re thinking of abiogenesis there, not evolution. And I doubt that even if we did, you would accept it as proof of anything. It’s being worked on, though, just like many other areas of science, so I don’t see why this in particular requires any measure of “faith” to test.

    “But God won’t let that happen and soon evolutionary theory will fade away as a fad.”
    Still waiting for you oh so confident prediction to come true ;)

    “IOW, I don’t need scientific evidences to prove/disprove historical claims.”
    Why does this not surprise me?

    “All I need is just historical-legal proof that God created everything from scratch to historically disprove the historical claim of GTE and we find that in many types of ‘creation’ accounts in all religions, if not most, throughout history.”
    All mutually contradictory creation myths. Which proves nothing.

    “the central dogma of medicine. LOL. that’s funny but maybe it’s a loose terminology of the medicine industry’s deceitful tactic to control society. Maybe. I don’t know exactly what X means by that.”
    If it was, I would expect at least ONE hit on google. I got none. I would guess he’s making it up.

    “But you’ll understand my POV once you watch this:”
    Watched, I fail to see the relevance.

    “A tautology is a statement that is true under all circumstances, such that the statement carries no meaning.”
    More that it can be derived from any base. There is a narrow difference between this and a statement of fact, one you seem to have missed.

    “Of course, and most evolutionists I see online appear to deceitfully, knowingly or unknowingly, switch the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, “bait-and-switch,” is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this “evolution,” then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. On top of that, they and creationists as well don’t bother to lay the foundational meanings of the word evolution before hand and argue over two different things.”
    In an informal debate it’s usually assumed that meaning can be derived from context. Which it usually can be.

    It also helps if you don’t use different terms than everyone else, such as splitting a theory into two parts to accuse those who haven’t of conflating your two definitions.

    “Two words “evolutionary dogma.” NCSE, National Science Foundation, Dr Jerry Bergman all bear this proof.”
    Nice try, but not relevant.
    The wedge document explicitly states the goals of the DI in undermining science in public schools in order to eventually be able to teach creationism to school kids as science.
    Hardly the same as a national science foundation keeping up the standards all of science is held to.”

    “You are a materialistic scientist, a uniformitarian of philosophical naturalism, a perfect example of the atheistic bias present within the scientific community”
    All of science is materialist, by definition. Uniformitarianism, if you meanw hat I tihnk you do by this, is necessary for all empirical studies. And as for an atheistic bias, if the study of the universe biases one towards atheism, then that is certainly interesting. Otherwise, I’ll have to reiterate the distinction between atheism and secularism.

    “a typical biological historical evolutionist who uses the common logical fallacy of conflation, whose logic unfalsifiably presupposes the GTE”
    Again, these are not terms anyone else uses. And as I have already said to you elsewhere, The theory of evolution is entirely falsifiable. Fossils of modern rabbits in devaronian rocks would be the classic example. Pity they don’t exist, depsite desperate attempts to find something like that.

    “The reason materialism must be overthrown is because of its implications of our culture (abortion and human rights) and because it is philosophically inferior to Biblical Christianity.”
    Overthrown? So you then admit your leanings are not scholarly, but idealogical. Your religion is in no way “superior” philosophically, because it is entirely based on faith, not reason or evidence.

    “Mine isn’t a strawman but his is. Now his is since he’s using an argument weaker than the fact that there are ‘fundamentalism’ in the science community as much as it is in any other ‘community’ political to religious.”
    That’s still not a strawman. A strawman is a deliberately false version of an opponents argument that is designed to be easy to knock down, to avoid attacking the real argument. That definition in no way fits your description of his argument.

    “Scientific dogma. People have been abused, fired and received death threats for simply being involved in creationism/ Intelligent design to teaching the two model approach.”
    I doubt the death threats part greatly, at least from a scientific fundie sense, perhaps someonedid recieve them for another reason, like political opponents. If someone in a scientiifc field is espousing unscientific things as science, then they deserve to be fired, frankly. Obviously their judgement on what is or is not scientific is flawed. As for abuse, depends how you mean the term, certainly creationists are ridiculed a lot. As for the idea of a “two model approach”, it’s obviously not going to work until ID becomes scientific, which I expect won’t be any time soon. It would help if they began doing SOME sort of research. Reasearch is a good start when you want to do science. Sorta… the miminum necessary requirement. It’s not like they’ve tried much, even when specifically invited to apply for funding by the tempelton foundation, no one submitted a research proposal.

    “But we have seen Jews, blacks and minorities, such as myself, who were killed in the past for being biologically inferior or less evolved than the perpetrators or being despised upon by ’supremacy groups’ and ‘fascist movements’ who use biological evolution to justify that we are a disease to be ridden of.”
    Which had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with people looking for an excuse.
    You can no more blame science for that than you can blame science for hiroshima or the number of traffic accidents ever year.

  117. WAH
    December 7th, 2007 | 05:11

    You’re artificially splitting the theory of evolution into two parts, and calling it conflation when the rest of us use the proper term….. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t go along with your terminology, and instead stick with the real scientific terms….Plenty of evidence in the fossil record, in genetic tracers, in behavioural, physiological and biochemical similarities, and various other lines of evidence. All amply supporting the theory….Neither of which are honest criticisms of the thoery of evolution….If we did see those it would disprovbe the theory of evolution, not support it…..All mutually contradictory creation myths.

    ROFL! Some of your statements are so truly outrageous and totally off the wall of common knowledge.

    Here’s my response to all that: You KNOW what I’m saying is right because you KNOW I got the evolutoinary theory up by its neck. So the natural thing for you to do is BS your way through and simply state the opposite, while hiding behind your facade that evolutionary theory is untouched when in fact you know deep down it has so many flaws and problems with the obstacles I presented beforehand that you willfully stubbornly treat them as a minor issue even though it bothers the hell out of you and the major holes in the theory. I know this because there is so much contrary and opposing kinds of arguments against evolution theory out there on the net and in real life that it would be absurd even for you to skip along the ‘yellow brick road’ as if evolution is unchallenged and proven. That takes a lot of faith to flippantly treat none of the problems of evolution as having a thorn on its side. On top of that, you’re no longer defending the theory of evolution. You’re defending your own kind of logic. And because of the problems that evolution theory faces have emerged out of this debate, you had to deviate from your original atheistic/agnostic/secular view of evolutionary theory to a primitive warped and sick version of a subjected variant of a logic you’ve pushed yourself into a corner defending. In the end you make yourself out not to know what you are really talking about. Every single piece of your response has a fallacious assumption on my part due to either your uncanny ignorance for what is being discussed OR you have deceitfully and knowingly and willingly tweaked your own logic in a way that is contradictory to the truth and is arguing off of THAT. Why? You know and I know you are backed in the corner here so why not get away with picking certain parts in the evolution theory and flavour your own ‘brand’ of logic. Evolution is still a theory. Check 1.

    “Your religion is in no way “superior” philosophically, because it is entirely based on faith, not reason or evidence. Still waiting for you oh so confident prediction to come true”
    Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. oh Evolution is still a theory.
    Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
    oh Evolution is still a theory. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
    Is evolution *still* a theory? Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
    Ding Dong. Ding Dong. Ding Dong. OH! Evolution is a fact now? Oh no. False alarm.
    Wow. isn’t that something? you must have tons of faith to trust that one day evolution will no longer be called a theory, whether it will be or not. Go ahead and deny that, even all the historical evidence for Christianity that millions of leaders and followers blindly disregard as objective credibility for faith.
    Evolution is still a theory. Check 2.

    “An unsupported claim, and unsupportable….The theory of evolution is entirely falsifiable…..Nice try, but not relevant….Watched, I fail to see the relevance…I doubt the death threats part greatly,”
    This CLEARLY demonstrates your total lack of research and critical thinking beyond your thick cornea. With a few mouse clicks they could easily be corrected as much as it is for you to ‘play it off.’
    Evolution is still a theory. Check 3.

    “That definition in no way fits your description of his argument.”
    ohhh. THAT definition. Then you’d be correct. But I’m not going by YOUR, as in THAT, definition. Here’s mine whifh is more of an objective basis AND that was what sajonara was arguing against position B that science fundies aren’t so bad, as opposed to position A which was science fundies are categorized worse off than Sajonara asserted, or in this case, the position A is stronger because its claim holds more truth as opposed to the pos. B which was way off base.

    This fallacy is where a person argues against an position similar to but weaker than their opponent’s actual position.

    Pattern:
    * A person holds to position A but their opponent argues against position B, which is similar to position A but weaker, as though it were position A.

    Example:
    * E. Creationists claim that species are fixed, but not only is there great variety with in species but species have been observed as coming from other species.
    * C: This is a fallacy because Creationists do not claim that species are fixed, but that Created kinds are fixed, with a great amount of variety within the Created kinds

    Evolution is still a theory. Check 4.

    “Which had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with people looking for an excuse.
    You can no more blame science for that than you can blame science for hiroshima or the number of traffic accidents ever year.”
    THAT is a double standard because it doesn’t save face for science any more than it does for religion, politics, economics, culture, which all are underpinnings of a fascist movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler proves that science, whatever field that maybe (look it up and you’ll see), was used as a basis for the foundation of racial hygeine for Hitler’s social policies. That has absolutley to do with science as much as it did with religion, politics, econonmics and culture being used for someone’s excuse. Don’t even try to make science look more innocent than the others when you know I’ve made a point that anyone with common sense can agree on.
    Evolution is still called theory. Check 5.

    Now I’ve noticed that you’ve simply disagreed for the hell of it and you’ve cleverly tweaked your logic away from truth to merely contradict mine by either practicing ignorance, equivocating facts and/or picking and choosing which information appeals to your subjective perspective on how you can argue against me. LOL.
    Evolution is still not fact. Check 6.

  118. Redem
    December 8th, 2007 | 07:57

    “ROFL! Some of your statements are so truly outrageous and totally off the wall of common knowledge.”

    “Common knowledge”? Yeah, that’ll pass.
    Common knowledge and common sense bear little relation to reality in many cases.

    I stand by all of those statements.

    Especially the ones regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and biogenesis, which again you dismiss without responding to.

    “You KNOW what I’m saying is right because you KNOW I got the evolutoinary theory up by its neck.”
    HAH! A bold claim, that you have no way of backing up.

    I could say the same for you.

    “I know this because there is so much contrary and opposing kinds of arguments against evolution theory out there on the net and in real life that it would be absurd even for you to skip along the ‘yellow brick road’ as if evolution is unchallenged and proven.”
    I agree that there are plenty of attacks on the evolution, all of them distortions, lies, or simple willful ignorance.

    “And because of the problems that evolution theory faces have emerged out of this debate, you had to deviate from your original atheistic/agnostic/secular view of evolutionary theory to a primitive warped and sick version of a subjected variant of a logic you’ve pushed yourself into a corner defending”
    Support this please. My position is the same I began with. That you are not using the same words as the rest of us, that the theory of evolution is not the overarching atheistic conspiracy theory you seem to think it is, and that the various “flaws” and such that you bring up are all based on a flawed understanding of the topic at hand.

    “Every single piece of your response has a fallacious assumption on my part due to either your uncanny ignorance for what is being discussed OR you have deceitfully and knowingly and willingly tweaked your own logic in a way that is contradictory to the truth and is arguing off of THAT.”
    For the most part, so far in this board, we’ve been discussing nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but your response to another poster. The.. accuracy of your accusations of fallacies, and such.
    Not the arguments themselves.

    “Evolution is still a theory. Check 1.”
    The theory of evolution is a theory? Surprising that isn’t it? has anyone been claiming that it wasn’t? I haven’t seen anyone do so.
    It seems you too are guilty of equivocation over the terms.

    I have stated this before, but it seems I must do so again.

    Yes, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. And will always be a scientific theory. That’s is what scientific theories are. The word is used to represent scientific explanations, in this case the explanation for the observed fact that life evolves.
    It will always be a theory in the same sense that the theories relativity will always be theories, that all of the theories of gravity will always be theories, that atomic theory will always be a theory and that cell theory will always be a theory.
    That’s what theories are until they’re discarded.

    So no, the theory of evolution will never be a “fact”, in the sense you are using the term. Just like no other scientific theory has ever been, or ever will be, a “fact”.

    “This CLEARLY demonstrates your total lack of research and critical thinking beyond your thick cornea. With a few mouse clicks they could easily be corrected as much as it is for you to ‘play it off.’”
    Which one? And perhaps you could educate me.

    “Here’s mine whifh is more of an objective basis AND that was what sajonara was arguing against position B that science fundies aren’t so bad, as opposed to position A which was science fundies are categorized worse off than Sajonara asserted, or in this case, the position A is stronger because its claim holds more truth as opposed to the pos. B which was way off base.”
    Your definition is correct, but your use of it is not.

    He was not painting a flawed image of creationism to attack, he was painting his perception of creationism.

    Whether it is correct or not is another matter.

    “Example:
    * E. Creationists claim that species are fixed, but not only is there great variety with in species but species have been observed as coming from other species.
    * C: This is a fallacy because Creationists do not claim that species are fixed, but that Created kinds are fixed, with a great amount of variety within the Created kinds”
    To be more accurate, some creationists do claim that species are fixed. Creatioists do not have a single creed, they are a group of similar ideologies under a single umbrella term. For example old earth and young earth creationists, those who accept or deny a literal noah’s flood, etc..

    “THAT is a double standard because it doesn’t save face for science any more than it does for religion, politics, economics, culture, which all are underpinnings of a fascist movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler proves that science, whatever field that maybe (look it up and you’ll see), was used as a basis for the foundation of racial hygeine for Hitler’s social policies.”
    Not a double standard at all. There is a difference between those who kill in the name of something, and those who use something to kill. The idea of eugenics was not because of evolution, but because of the idea of breeding an undesirable trait out of a population. That practice long predates science, let alone the theory of evolution.

    “Don’t even try to make science look more innocent than the others when you know I’ve made a point that anyone with common sense can agree on.”
    Common sense also tells us the earth is stationary and the universe wheels around overhead.
    Science is innocent in so much as a method and a body of works can be.

    “Now I’ve noticed that you’ve simply disagreed for the hell of it and you’ve cleverly tweaked your logic away from truth to merely contradict mine by either practicing ignorance, equivocating facts and/or picking and choosing which information appeals to your subjective perspective on how you can argue against me.”
    No, not really. Nice to see how you think though.

    “Evolution is still called theory.”
    Mmhmmmm

    Which just goes to show how good a theory it is. :)
    The bad ones don’t stay theories.

  119. Max
    January 19th, 2008 | 21:58

    This is a hoax and a fraudulent news item trying to manipulate truth unto the masses into blindly accepting ape-human evolutionary propaganda and further Marxism worldwide.

    The chimp has NO IDEA what numbers are or how to add random numbers (I dare any Apeist believer to put 9+33+2+9+0=? in front of a chimp or any other random numerical question without teaching him the question and answer prior and see if he can add and create a value =x ).

    All the chimp has been taught is how to repeat a sequence of images (the numbers are just images to him) which over a long period of time he has been able to put into memory by use of sound and food reinforcement.

    This is the same type of trick you can teach many other animals to do over a long period of time. The chimp is NOT COUNTING, the chimp is REPEATING PATTERNS ingrained into him over time through reinforcement (NOT through coherent understanding of what a number is or what number value even means).

    Anyone who had good fast use of their hands and arms after memorizing the patterns that the chimps learned here could easily keep up with the chimps, but the test subjects in this hoaxed experiment were not given months if not years to practice and put the patterns into memory mentally and physically through movement of arms as were these chimps.

    Of course none of these facts will EVER be exposed in any mainstream media outlet as most all of them are controlled by people who wish to further the Marxist Darwinian propaganda.

  120. wah
    January 26th, 2008 | 16:53

    I agree to a certain extent.

  121. coupons online
    November 14th, 2011 | 19:42

    I am impressed to read such a powerful story about Monkeys more clever than humans, damn! » Releaselog | RLSLOG.net. I will post a link on my coupon site to this blog post. I will be back to read more.

Leave a reply

 

rent this ad space
Sitemap