Did you know that 26% of Ontarians believe in creationism? 42% of Canadians think dinosaurs and humans coexisted on earth. Check out these fun stats from a recent Angus Reid poll.
Dalton McGuinty is launching a $650 million fund which will offer grants to Ontario automotive companies that build clean energy power generators. The goal? More electric, solar-powered, and wind-powered cars. The ideal? Emission-free vehicles that run on the feces of handbag dogs.
T.O. detective Paul Krawczyk was one of the key figures in busting a large child porn ring based out of Britain that had over 700 members in 35 countries. Four of the offenders lived in Toronto.
Unsurprisingly, Toronto is the most expensive city in Canada. But it ain't as bad as Moscow and London.
OMG Canadian gossip: did you heard that Canadian figure-skating legend Lloyd Eisler knocked up actress Kristy Swanson and now they have a baby? They totally met on the Fox reality show Skating With Celebrities (and won). Well, Kristy assaulted Lloyd's ex-wife on Father's Day in Kingston this weekend and was arrested! And we were all like, "Oh, no she didn't..." Now she'll have to return to Kingston for her trial in late July.
Photo by greenfrog808 from the Creation Museum in Hebron, Kentucky.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Creationism depresses me, but I'm not at all surprised that so many people are that dumb. Science has been under attack for a decade now, with the tobacco and oil industry funding a broad doubt-scientists agenda so people will ignore studies linking smoking to cancer and oil to pollution. I've yet to see a self-identified Creationist accurate define evolution.
How sad is it that science needs a public relations consultant?
Those velociraptors are supposed to be herbivores! What a funny idea. Maybe creationists are just being ironic.
I'm up for the challenge of being a PR person for science. Loved to do it actually. As a scientition, this has pissed me off for years.
Just listened to Dawkins on CBC a few minutes ago. Damn, that guy's tough.
Dinosuars and humans, 42% ? people, the Flintstones was not a documentary or reality show!! sheesh. There are a lot of outright STUPID people out there. Yes, I'm calling you out! I have no problem doing that when they would damn me and think I was deranged for not believing in "God" and look down their noses at me.
Ok, enough rant ...
p.s.-that photo is funny though
Not only did humans live with dinosaurs, but they also wore modest clothes and cut their bangs!
I highly recommend looking through this alarming Flickr set of the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Bad science makes the baby Jesus cry.
Also, most Republicans in the U.S. (including three presidential candidates) don't believe in the theory of evolution and 25% of Americans believe Earth is less than 10,000 years old! 41% of all Americans believe that creationism is true and evolution is not, while an additional 24% believe that both are true.
I'm afraid I've read something more thrilling - I don't remember where, maybe CBC or one of Toronto's internet editions of newspapers - that over 51% believes in creationism (or rather cretinism)... check it - if it was true...
I'd SORT OF be one of those people you mock, but not totally. I'm not saying I think creationism is a fact and Evolution is not. What I say is, neither one can be 100% proven, neither one has ever been observed, and neither one has ANY bearing whatsoever on any of our day to day lives, so I can't understand why people get so up in arms about it?
And I'm a pastors son(the proverbial "Son of a preacher man", and YES Karen, I'm the only one that could ever reach you ;> ), so please understand thats a big paradigm shift for me.
The banality of creationism aside, I bet even that velociraptor can outsing sanjaya.
dear brokenengine,
your statement:
"neither one has ever been observed"
is FALSE.
scientific FACT: evolution has been observed. do some reading, check out some papers. it has been observed in nature over a few generations as moths, for example, have adaped to their environments. it has been observed under laboratory conditions also and there are other examples out there.
hate to break it to you, but NOTHING can be absolutely proven. evolution is a theory that uses the available evidence to expain changes in organisms over time. it is a very good model and has been proven time and time again.
what does this matter in your everyday life?
not a lick, i suppose, other than the changes you'll see that will affect your life as our global climate continues to change and so with it the organisms that can adapt quick enough (evolve). some won't be able to. count on saying goodbye to some foods you like to eat.
what does this matter in your everyday life? well, it means the difference between whether you are a reasonable person that bases your reality on the evidence around you, or whether you believe something because your parents and relatives told you so ... when i was kid i believed in santa clause too ...
I am so not getting into an argument about this, because as I stated above, I don't give a rats ass. However, what you're describing is ADAPTATION. "Evolution", the process of one species transforming into another species, has not been observed.
One of the reasons I'm reluctant to discuss this is because of the vehemance with which the acolytes of the religion of science are so eager to 'lay the smackdown'. Open-minded-ness works both ways, and when you don't KNOW something 100%, who are you to challenge anyone else beliefs? Thats why I choose not to have an opinion. It CAN'T be proved, and it makes no difference to me or how I live my life.
What I DON'T like is people telling other people they're wrong, when those people can't 100% conclusively prove their postion either.
I should also rezstate, I am NOT saying you or evolution is wrong Chris. I just don't know. And I agree, a lot of creationists are blindfolded lemmings. I espouse tolerance and openness, especially when to comes to things that make very little difference in the present.
yeh, i'm baiting people, i admit that. BUT if you look at any definition of evolution such as:
"Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
adaptation comes about as a result of evolution.
not know something 100%? i guess that means nobody can ever argue or challenge anyone else since it is impossible to know anything 100% accoridng to that logic. BUT i do know when something makes more sense than something else. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do a doctorate in Evolutionary Biology ...
Science cannot be a religion btw. One definition:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
All religion relies on certain principles, none of which apply to science. Science is a methid of exploration and reason based on observation.
brokenengine, fair enough.
i agree with you. i get my back up in the face of the silliness of religion, especially because of the lemming behaviour. science is a method of explaining stuff. part of being a scientist is being openminded. if soemthing doesn't fit the evidence: throw it away. religion doesn't fir any evidence that i have observed.
the difference between species is a handfull of genes ... no magical line in the sand. time plays funny games with our genes. sometimes those changes make a big difference. what was once considered one species may now be another. eg - there are bugs in australia that look and behave ike ants, are they ants? upon genetic inspection, they are not....
I think that the concept of evolution is 100% compatible with the concept of God. I would even suggest to the faithful that the staggeringly amazing things we know from science are probably your best argument for proof that God exists.
Science can't prove a negative, but one thing that is virtually universally accepted by scientists is that the Earth is absolutely more than 10,000 years old, and that the dinosaurs were long-extinct by the time we showed up.
brokenengine: Your personal views are always welcome, even if you feel that you're in the minority. I think it's great that we have so many readers with different views and experiences.
... i have ot get back to studying after this one ...
diversity of view and opinions is a good thing, i agree.
the existence of "God", imo, is not 100% compatible with science, as it stands today. if we accept that science is based on reason and observation, which it is, then "God" cannot fit in that framework as the concept of "God" cannot be observed or reasoned, as we know it.
this does not preclude something miracalous happening in the future though, and the existence of "God" can be proven. if that happens well i'll admit my mistake cause that means there is evidence to contradict my views.
"However, what you're describing is ADAPTATION. "Evolution", the process of one species transforming into another species, has not been observed."
Sorry, but if you don't want to get into a debate about this, you're going to have to stop posting such blatantly untrue statements.
Evolution is NOT about a species transforming into a different species. Evolution says that offspring inherit the characteristics of their parents. The characteristics that get passed down more often are those which enabled the parents to survive long enough to have more offspring to pass them down to.
The actual definition of species is debated, mostly because the notion of species is older than that of evolution. But for evolutionary purposes, the most common definition is that members of the same species can produce fertile offspring together, members of different species cannot.
If all H.Sapiens born over the next 100 years were to have wings, they wouldn't be a new species. So long as they could interbreed, they'd still be H.Sapiens.
To create a new, divergent species, one would have to segregate a portion of an existing species and subject them to a different environment where different characteristics are favoured. If left to breed (successfully) under sufficiently different conditions for enough generations, eventually both groups would have so little in common as to be unable to interbreed and would therefore be different species.
Arguably evolution has nothing to do with adaptation, either. Rather, evolution is driven by the failure of a portion of a species to adapt to their environment that results in a different average set of characteristics being passed down to the next generation.
Oh, and incidentally, virtually everything to do with creationism has been disproved. So unless you feel that god is tricking us, you have no recourse there.
Agreed Diane, but I don't think any creationist is denying what you're describing. What they would deny is that one species(say, um, fish or ape) would or could transform into another. What *I'M* saying is, I don't believe not disbelieve it. There's just not enough evidence. Sure, it's a good model, but it's not infallible. So, you have to go with it, because thats the best thing there is to explain things. But that could also be described as "Faith", could it not? Again, the people that juist blindly go on the bible drive me crazy, because they just answer every challenge with "Gods will", which obviously doesn't work in the secular world.
What worries me is the increasing polarization between the two camps. I mean, c'mon guys, is it payback for the Inquisition or something? All views should at least be respected, even if you roll your eyes when the persons back is turned. Challenge if you will, and I welcome challenge. I'm just not a good target because I don't have a crystalized opinion.
I hope that makes sense.
PS: Marc, that Flickr set is awesome. Wow, that museum looks really depressing.
i'm going to assume that brokenengine is at least a scientist ... if he is, and since he says there is not enough evidence to support evolution, then he must also be an evolutionary biologist (hey, i'd like to meet richard dawkins, can you arrange that for me?) or at least somebody comparable to be able to make that statement.
i beseach you kind sir, what are your qualifications? the least you can do...
btw, it's not the same thing as "faith". science, at least, requires EVIDENCE. really, i wouldn't lie about that.
p.s.-and yes, it is payback for the inquistion ... didn't expect that, eh?
"p.s.-and yes, it is payback for the inquistion ... didn't expect that, eh?"
HAHAHA It all makes sense now!
And kudos for the Python.
YES Karen, I'm the only one that could ever reach you ;> )
I'm not interested unless your father was a Southern Baptist preacher.
ha, python makes it alllll better ... ;^)
"Agreed Diane, but I don't think any creationist is denying what you're describing. What they would deny is that one species(say, um, fish or ape) would or could transform into another."
Well, you denied it in your previous comment. I'm glad you have come around.
"There's just not enough evidence. "
Well, we have managed to recreate functional visual peptides of dinosaurs from gene sequences of modern birds, according to:
*Chang, B.S.W., Jönsson, K., Kazmi, M.A., Donoghue, M.J. and Sakmar, T.P. (2002). Recreating a Functional Ancestral Archosaur Visual Pigment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:1483–1489.*
That's pretty good evidence that certain modern bird species are the ancestors of certain dinosaur species, after a relatively short 65x10^6 years.
Furthermore, humans have been breeding animals and plants to encourage or eliminate characteristics for centuries. Evolution is basically the same obvious process, except with the changing environment making the choices instead of us.
Do I have to go on and list all the evidence against Creationism?
"I'm just not a good target because I don't have a crystalized opinion."
Then you have no reason to claim that Creationism is as valid as evolution. The former is thoroughly disproven, the later is virtually proven (and consistent with everything else we know about how the world works).
dear diane,
boo-yah!
sincerely,
chris
Not enough evidence?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
Evolutionary trees for the modern horse, whales and dolphins, dating back 40-50 million years, with skeletal (tooth and toe for the horse, tooth and skull for the cetaceans), and DNA/molecular evidence that not only puts them in order, but shows where they branched off from earlier ancestors.
If there isn't enough evidence to reach these conclusions, do you believe evolutionary biologists have been intentionally propagating a hoax for the past century?
Why is it only Protestants really have a problem with evolution? Pope John Paul II thought it was fine and dandy, the Dalai Lama said it's not in conflict with Buddhist beliefs, and I know of no organized or widespread opposition from Hindus or Muslims.
I believe in creation through evolution -- I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Chris, you said that "the existence of "God", imo, is not 100% compatible with science, as it stands today. if we accept that science is based on reason and observation, which it is, then "God" cannot fit in that framework as the concept of "God" cannot be observed or reasoned, as we know it."
Fair point, from a scientific perspective. The existence of God cannot be proven, so perhaps people purely of science cannot believe in God. But that doesn't mean that people of faith cannot believe in science. By my views, the two are perfectly compatable because I don't need proof that God exists, but fully accept that which science has proven.
I don't know what the options were on the poll, but I do think that it could be misleading. If someone asked me if I believed in creationism, my answer wouldn't be a yes or no answer. It's the 'ism' that scares me off with all that it implies. I am not a creationist, but I believe in creation. I don't think that the 26% of Ontarians who said they believed in creationism would have necessarily said they didn't believe in evolution.
Thanks for the links, Rek.
Sherry:
Absolutely! Science does not refute God, just our ancestors' misunderstanding of how God works.
If one believes God created Man, why should it be so hard to believe that He did so through evolution rather than magic?
"If one believes God created Man, why should it be so hard to believe that He did so through evolution rather than magic?"
Because if one believes he is capable of either, then one believes he ultimately HAS that power. So why would EITHER be excluded?
Again, I SO don't care, as I don't CARE how we got here, just that we got here. And again, preach on acolytes! hahaha
... damn you, dman you all...
brokenengine:
"acolyte
noun
someone who assists a priest or minister in a liturgical service; a cleric ordained in the highest of the minor orders in the Roman Catholic Church but not in the Anglican Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches "
i am not an acolyte.
p.s.- it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster anyway ...
HAHAHA I love that FSM shit! Too funny!
No, I know, I'm making a joke. I think that a lot of people DO treat science like a religion though, and just as blindly take what they've read as rote as religious people do. Y'know?
brokenengine,
heheh
yeh, i do know what you mean, but it is all based on the evidence or well-reasoned out theories. at the end of the day, it has to make sense within our understanding of the physical world, if not, it is discarded.
i think many people in the general public have the impression that is like a religion as you say, but within the scientific community that is not, for the most part of course, how it works.
again, i think, back to my big beef, the interaction of science and the general public in the wider sphere of discourse. we need proper PR dammit. toooooo many misconceptions about science. i really want to do something more with this.
brokenengine, you said "Because if one believes he is capable of either, then one believes he ultimately HAS that power. So why would EITHER be excluded?"
Because, as Diane said, "[Evolution] is virtually proven (and consistent with everything else we know about how the world works)."
That's why I reject the traditional view of creationism and embrace creation through evolution. A lot of Christians get stuck on the whole 'God created the world in six days' thing, but really, what is a day to God? Could be a billion years to us.