Yoinked from bad astronomy blog comes this entertaining read. Basically this microbiologist just wrapped up a 20 year experiment (!!!) which concluded in what is apparently pretty clear evidence of evolution occurring in e. coli bacteria.

Some creationist-type with a website sent him/published a letter which seems clearly intended to dispute his results; a short (in numbers of email) email trail is linked above in which the researcher has at him.

Note: you'll need to have ring of +10 reading skillz; tldr posters will be banned; if you have nothing to contribute then don't say anything.

wow those poo germs really are cainers.

I was particularly amused by Prof. Lenski's P.P.P.S. remark

From the content on your website, it is clear that you, like many others, view God as the Creator of the Universe. I respect that view. I find it baffling, however, that someone can worship God as the all-mighty Creator while, at the same time, denying even the possibility (not to mention the overwhelming evidence) that God’s Creation involved evolution. It is as though a person thinks that God must have the same limitations when it comes to creation as a person who is unable to understand, or even attempt to understand, the world in which we live. Isn’t that view insulting to God?

A lot of Christians changed their minds a little about the Big Bang theory, going from 'that's bs' stance to 'God created the Big Bang'.
I'm sure it's just a matter of time before these freaks go from 'that's bs' to 'God created evolution'.
Big Bang/Evolution Creationists. What a crock of s***.

Long read, but worth it. I kept picturing Jack Thompson on the recieving end of all that.

also what's tldr?

watch the new futurama movie beasts with a billion backs and it explains it all ;)

God is just an excuse so ppl can have a sense of purpose etc.

good read. it is clear that this wiki is actually all part of god's grand plan too.

also what's tldr?

Means Too long, Didn't read.

Interesting read.

tlbdr, (too long but did read). Interesting :)

if the creationists knew their s*** they would have countered with "evolution of bacteria in a lab doesn't prove that humans came about by evolution and it doesn't disprove the creation stories". that way they could ignore the whole damning evidence of evolution thing.

This is why they should allow the teaching of intelligent design in science class, so (so called) 'scientists' like this don't waste their time and our money (as hard working tax payers) on frivolous 20 year experiments.

This is why they should allow the teaching of intelligent design in science class, so (so called) 'scientists' like this don't waste their time and our money (as hard working tax payers) on frivolous 20 year experiments.

I'm jealous, this is the best satire on religious thinking I've seen in a long time! I especially liked the way you completely ignored the sentiment of the thread and related article and just drew your own uninformed conclusion based on a couple of barely comprehended details. Truly a work of art!

cool, another creationism thread.

Who cares when they fire up the Hadron Collider we are all dead anyway!

cool, another creationism thread.

In answer to your other question that made it into my spam folder somehow, this is why

I'm jealous, this is the best satire on religious thinking I've seen in a long time! I especially liked the way you completely ignored the sentiment of the thread and related article and just drew your own uninformed conclusion based on a couple of barely comprehended details. Truly a work of art!

I can't figure out if this is further satire or if you are paying out chakas :(

proving the evolutionary process exists does not prove that God does not exist.

Creationists can claim God created evolution.

Why do scientists insist on arguing with people who in essence lift themselves up by their bootstraps?

proving the evolutionary process exists does not prove that God does not exist.

Unlike creationists, who are trying desperately to prove that evolution is not how we came about, scientists don't care whether or not God exists at all. They're not testing evolution scientifically to disprove the existence of God. The God-probability-reduction of proofs of evolution like this is merely a beneficial side effect.

Creationists can claim God created evolution.

They can, and if you read the link in the OP you'll see that the scientist in question actually explains this to the creationist.

Why do scientists insist on arguing with people who in essence lift themselves up by their bootstraps?

Because these people are trying to use pseudoscience and double-talk in a vain, half-assed attempt to disprove the scientific method, relying on the fact that gullible people will believe anything they read if it is written in an authoritative enough fashion. That was basically the entire point of the guys final email, to make sure the dope realises that he is not qualified to have an opinion on the matter he's just spent 20 years of his life researching.

Can I just clear things up here.

Creationists CANNOT believe in evolution, NOR say that god created evolution, because the whole idea of a creationist theory is that there is no such THING as evolution.

It's rather paradoxical to have a creationist that believes in evolution, you see.

phooks is sort of right here.

except that some concede that evolution exists now, but they refuse to accept that "creation" came about through evolution. theres probably a few of the wishy washy types who think humans came about at the snap of god's finger but that animals evolved.

catholics i'm pretty sure are ok with it so long as you don't say animals have souls.

check out the Why do people laugh at creationists? series on youtube

this scientist tears inept creationists a new one. champagne comedy

Creationists are different to Theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary creationist) are different to Atheistic evolutionists (is that even a word).

The catholic line as I was taught it was evolution is fine as long as you accept god is the spark to it all.

Also nF the line I got told as a kid was all living things (animals and even plants) have souls ... just not "spiritual" soul ie. they don't go to heaven (hell or purgatory) they just die. But ... they could should god decide he wants to ... cos he's all powerful and stuff.

catholics i'm pretty sure are ok with it so long as you don't say animals have souls.

No problems!

Wait... what happens if I say nothing has a soul? I guess that might annoy them.

I was grown up by a staunch christian mother, and if you mention "evolution" to her, she'd meet it with contempt. However, I personally have defected from such a closed-minded view. I take on the views of christianity, and add to them by assuming that a god can have made the universe and all in it, however who's to say he didn't originally make "man" as monkies. There's nothing stopping man from originally being a monkey and then evolving over time into the modern day man we are. There's scientific proof that man has evolved from monkey, why can't they meet in the f***ing middle?

It makes no sense to be so closed minded when people will spend their entire life STUDYING this s*** to figure out where we came from, but yet someone who spends 10 minutes each week studying the same book and drawing their conclusions from that thinks they know better...

*sigh* closed minded christianity gives me the s***s....

The only creationists that can believe what they believe without being hypocritical must believe in the rest of the bible word for word. Only then would I be happy to chat to them about it.

As far as I know the reason why creationists should believe in creationism is because of the passage about God creating the Earth in 6 or 7 days. If they take that as it is written they should take the rest of the Bible as it is written, ie Homosexuals are abominations, slavery is OK and that hitting your slave is OK as long as it doesn't kill them because they are your property and all the other bizar stuff that is written. You can't pick and choose then sprout that what is written is fact over science. If you believe it all, word for word, then fine sprout away I doubt many people do.

I reckon God tried to create Earth in 6 days then gave up and when he rested on the 7th day he was really just crumbling it all up into a big pile of dirt, but then it evolved into Earth anyway years later and God said "well would you look at that, who woulda thunk it"

As far as I know the reason why creationists should believe in creationism is because of the passage about God creating the Earth in 6 or 7 days. If they take that as it is written they should take the rest of the Bible as it is written, ie Homosexuals are abominations, slavery is OK and that hitting your slave is OK as long as it doesn't kill them because they are your property and all the other bizar stuff that is written. You can't pick and choose then sprout that what is written is fact over science. If you believe it all, word for word, then fine sprout away I doubt many people do.

Yeah because people who believe in creationism are totally rational and surely wouldn't believe in that other crazy stuff that's in the bible right?

heh the bible doesn't actually say "homosexuals are abominations" - like many beliefs of Christians, that's just an interpretation.

Interesting read. For somebody who's obviously quite annoyed and frustrated by the correspondence I think Lenski did an amazing (and amusing) job of replying in such an articulate and relatively reasonable manner (well, assuming this isn't all rationalist propaganda, anyway : )

What I think is completely unnecessary is the editorial nature of the writing that presents (and concludes) the correspondence. To me Lenski's letter seemed to be primarily designed to convince any fence-sitters reading conservapedia that there was substance to be found in his research if you take the time to study it, and I think the content of his letter does that well - it doesn't need any adding to. The tone of the writing that introduces and concludes the subject matter on the wiki is just patronising. The tone comes across as smug, which is all well and good if you support the writer's perspective, but it comes across as the same smug self-assurance that any true-believer in whatever-you-care-to-mention has. The editorial brings up interesting and valid points that weren't present in the correspondence itself, but it's hardly objectively phrased.

Now to generalise this to the ongoing debate of science vs. creationism. It seems to me that the really vocal, publicity-getting atheists have the same problem as their religious counterparts in their contemptuous attitude toward the other side. Sure, it's understandably a pain to have to explain yourself to people who just don't get what you're saying, and it'd be a whole lot easier if they'd stop being annoying in the way they disagree with you, but as soon as you get a holier-than-thou tone in your speech you sound just as much a wanker as the other guy (similarly to the way I'm coming across as a wanker as you read this). Lenski's letters didn't quite get that far from my perspective (although close), but the rest of that wiki page does.

Every interpretation of reality is absurd because it's all based on the flawed observations of apes. Science is a pretty good way of trying to understand reality because it lets you change your mind when a better/more appropriate model of thought comes along. When you get emotionally attached to your hypothesis you start to sound just like a religious nut, even if you're onto a good idea.

The tone of the writing that introduces and concludes the subject matter on the wiki is just patronising. The tone comes across as smug, which is all well and good if you support the writer's perspective, but it comes across as the same smug self-assurance that any true-believer in whatever-you-care-to-mention has.

I didn't find it smug at all (though I can see how some people would think that). I found it exasperated and frustrated and basically just sick of dealing with people that a) don't read what you're writing and b) make almost deliberate efforts not to understand the bits they do bother to read, because its easier than the alternative!

Science is a pretty good way of trying to understand reality because it lets you change your mind when a better/more appropriate model of thought comes along.

The thing about scientists that religious people don't seem to get - really, I suspect this is the thing that is more annoying than anything else to science-types - is that scientists are willing to admit they're wrong when confronted with evidence that is contrary to popular belief.

This is, I think, the primary difference between people in many respects - some are willing to admit they're wrong and then learn something from their mistakes, while others don't want to learn anything or admit wrong-ness in case it clashes with some other pre-conceived idea that they have.

I love admitting that I'm wrong (although OBVIOUSLY it happens extremely rarely :) because it means I've learned something new that I didn't know before.

Also nF the line I got told as a kid was all living things (animals and even plants) have souls ... just not "spiritual" soul ie. they don't go to heaven (hell or purgatory) they just die. But ... they could should god decide he wants to ... cos he's all powerful and stuff.

so basically they have no soul. having a soul = having a life after death - in my understanding of it.

and stick, google says its this one:

...
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
...

im ignoring this thread, its just god testing my faith

heh the bible doesn't actually say "homosexuals are abominations" - like many beliefs of Christians, that's just an interpretation.

-

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

how else would you interpret that, billy?

tldr

top literature, do recommend!

It's good to see a really hard owning like that. And big ups for evolution!

how else would you interpret that, billy?

Firstly, that is just one translation of the bible... there are other variations that differ slightly.

Secondofly, what does "lie with mankind" even mean? Women are included in the traditional use of the term mankind, and "lie" does not have to mean sex. Does it mean that man on man oral is not a sin because you can do that with women? It's just plain stupid to try to make any sort of certain interpretations from such an ancient text that has so many different translations, not to mention is based on a mythical character's commands.

not to mention is based on a mythical character's commands.

Firstly, that is just one translation of the bible... there are other variations that differ slightly.

nF if that's you understanding of it, no one can argue with it ... but you can't really apply your definitions to other peoples usage of the words.

But the catholic line (as I vaguely remember it)
A rock has no soul, the lack of a soul makes them not alive.
All living things have souls, its the soul that makes them living.
Angels and humans have spiritual/divine (can't remember the exact wording they used) souls, a soul that exist after the body has died.

Which is what most people think when you say soul, aka an eternal soul.

Nobody ever taught me that trees have souls, but thats not the point. If you replace "soul" with "eternal soul" i'm pretty sure that what i said sums up catholics on evolution even if you are a pedantic semantic.

last edited by nF at 14:06:14 28/Jun/08

I didn't find it smug at all

I don't find Lenski's writing smug, unless he wrote the wiki summary as well (i.e. the bit that's not the letters that are quoted). It's the little things like the link with the words "could not be tolerated" which takes you to a page where the words "could" and "tolerated" aren't used at all. It's not exactly over-the-top writing, but it just irks me a little (especially because I was drunk when I read it). I really liked Lenski's letters, but the wiki text doesn't seem entirely impartial (though not extravagantly so in a more sober light). That sort of thing gets used as an excuse to not listen to what you have to say by people who don't want to listen - but then I suppose those people will find any excuse no matter how well you phrase things.

As for the experiment itself - it's a pretty awesome result. Actually seeing the nuts and bolts of things in action would be pretty satisfying, particularly after so much work.

All living things have souls, its the soul that makes them living.

Circular logic is what religious people are famous for.

yeah well they only use circular logic because they're famous for using it

I'm sick of religious nuts accusing atheists of being smug or media whores and generally showboating. Christianity gave us the dark ages, and people burned other people in the name of christianity. I think scientists are more than entitled to being a little smug about being right (and having the freedom to prove it). At least they're not burning christians at the stake for not believing in the results of a 20 year experiment...

It seems to me that the really vocal, publicity-getting atheists have the same problem as their religious counterparts in their contemptuous attitude toward the other side

Agreed. There are plenty of f***wits on both sides. Learn to have some respect for other peoples beliefs and leave it at that. Don't go forcing your beliefs on other people.

There are plenty of f***wits on both sides. Learn to have some respect for other peoples beliefs and leave it at that. Don't go forcing your beliefs on other people.

I've never seen a scientist burning a christian at the stake for not believing in evolution. I've never seen homosexuals showing up at a church to protest against christianity. I've never seen two scientists kill each other because one believes in a different model of an aspect of quantum mechanics. I've never encountered correspodence between an evolutionary scientist and a creationist that involved the scientist attacking the creationist and his work without ACTUALLY READING IT.

The d*******edness of hardcore creationists and other religious extremists far outweighs that of atheists or other scientists that disprove some aspect of religion. There is no comparison.

Crizane what you're saying isn't really on the same subject line as the others. They're saying some athiests push their opinions and beliefs onto others and don't respect other people's beliefs in the same manner that some religious people do in ways that annoy others. And they mean in the now, not in the past.

Scientists aren't all athiests, some are religious too. So scientists aren't on any one side when you talk about religious people vs athiests.

last edited by Saint at 16:35:39 29/Jun/08

Being a scientist has no bearing whatsoever on being religious or not. Logic doesn't preclude beliefs or vice versa.

That said i know some really stupid, narrow-minded scientists.

yeah well they only use circular logic because they're famous for using it

I chuckled.

It's good to see someone so soundly pwned in relation to this.

Bah (and co) its not actually circular logic.

The statement has meaning.

ie. You claim is circular logic.

There for All animals are living things. According to you all living things are animals ... But you know that's not true.

So E.coli have souls right?

The devil changed the E. coli to trick us!

and God just let it happen because he is an angry vengeful God that smites sinners!

how else would you interpret that, billy?

It could easily be interpreted to read that promiscuity is an abomination, not homosexuality.

It could easily be interpreted to read that promiscuity is an abomination, not homosexuality.

Only by idiots. I'm guessing thats how you interpreted it?

I'd have to agree with nF here at least as far as most English translations go (tho scholars are sure to argue over the translations) I don't think it ever gets translated promiscuity tho even in those arguments. More likely technical arguments about whether it means male prostitute's or if its a sin or just some uncleanliness.

That particular book also forbids wearing fabric made of more then one material and eating rare meat... (its also why JW's don't have blood transfusions)

It also rules out sex with family members, in laws and multi generational orgies ... oh and apparently animals ... fun killers

nF, sounding like an arrogant arsehole isn't going to convince people to agree with your argument, perhaps you should try a different approach.

love your work kos

do you agree with me now?

Well, yes, but I agreed with you before as well so :P

My point was, the Bible doesn't actually say "homosexuality is wrong". Out of all the interpretations made about different passages of the bible, this one is commonly taken less literally than others. There are many different ways that man can "lie with mankind like he does a woman" that don't include any sort of sexual activity. Similarly, there are ways that man can lie with man that IS sexual, but still unlike how he lies with women.

Also, this passage would mean that lesbianism is not a sin. Homosexuality includes lesbianism, so at the most that passage would be referring to man on man love, not homosexuality in general.

Like Obes said, it's a technical argument, but it's one that is as important as any other argument considering the next sentence would imply homosexuals should be killed. No wonder people brainwashed with this s*** from an early age are psychos.

"lie with mankind like he does a woman" that don't include any sort of sexual activity

...but the words 'lay' / 'lie' mean exactly that in old english mate.

If only early religous folks had had planes and treadmills ...

...but the words 'lay' / 'lie' mean exactly that in old english mate.

Firstly, the bible wasn't written in old english;) Secondly, all my other arguments still stand.

^ Obviously (cue that Republican senator's quote on learning foreign languages in American schools - "Why would I want to learn any other language other than what Jesus spoke! English only!")

...but popular translations like the King James version (which the fundies love) was translated in 1611.