Double Trouble

Wallpaper Other

Source (link to git-repo or to original if based on someone elses unmodified work): Add the source-code for this project on opencode.net

0
5.0
Description:

The Christian community is often accused of being against science. Indeed, it is considered that the words "Christian" and "Science" are mutually exclusive.

However, an increasing number of top evolutionary scientists are coming forward affirming that the evidence points to intelligent design and/or creation, not evolution...and even implying that evolution is itself a religion.

This wallpaper (which centers around DNA and the 'double helix') is therefore submitted for encouragement to believers, who may or may not be aware of this movement in the leadership of the school of evolution.

Done in the Gimp.

Soyburg

17 years ago

However, an increasing number of top evolutionary scientists are coming forward affirming that the evidence points to intelligent design and/or creation, not evolution...

H. Lipson is not a top evolutionary scientist. He is not an evolutionary scientist at all. His filed of expertise is optics and x-ray diffraction. It seems you quoted from this article:

H.S. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, 31 Physics Bulletin 138, 138 (1980)

Which I could not find online. Would you be so kind as to provide a link to it? Thanks.

Report

Flanders

17 years ago

The views of the Christian community and those of the scientific community regarding evolution often seem to be quite different. Some (Christian) faiths are even denying the possibility of evolution altogether, ignoring the evidence from the fossil records and DNA research that prove that in the past thousands of years homo sapiens (modern man) has evolved from other species and shares common ancestors with for example other primates.

Report

ogott

17 years ago

well, let's be honest: no intelligent individual nowadays would invent a creature like "god". maybe it was a neat story decades or centuries ago, but, as i said, nowadays it's not neccessary anymore. i don't want to say that religious people should stop believing in whatever they want (or better: are told) to believe.
it is just like this: i prefer believing in science that gives me answers that seem to be plausible to me than believing in a creature of which nobody can give me any evidence for its existence. in addition, most religions (like the christian religion) want me to PAY MONEY. i have no idea why i should pay money. i can believe in whatever i want without paying any money.
further, the christian religion is quite intolerant. i'm not gay, but i respect other people's sexual orientation, the church doesn't (only one example). but my favourite example is this one: why did the church kill people in the medieval age who said that the world isn't flat but spheric? ok, it is against the "facts" that were written down by a greek philosopher a few thousand years ago. this seems to be ok, but why did they admit in the 20. century that they were wrong, that they killed people because they said something against the churches lies and accept now what has already been plausible hundreds of years ago?

this is in my opinion already enough to think about the reliability of the church and its "facts". if you still don't want to think for yourself, let me give another example: the bible says, that the earth has been created within seven days. if i remember correctely, the vegetation has been created on the second or third day. a day is defined by the rotation of the earth around its axis until the sun is "on top" again. the sun was created on the fourth day. how long were the first three days then? think about it.
oh, and please don't come with such arguments as "you don't have to take that literally". if i don't take it literally, i can interpret everything as i want.
besides these inconsistencies, would you believe in a book of which nobody knows who the author is, which is hundreds of years old and which has been translated from language to language?
/me wouldn't.

Report

daperi

17 years ago

yes, but:

-homo sapiens has evolved from other species that do not live any more ... we do not have ancestors in the living species!!

-some religions maybe claim there is no evolution, but also in science you do not have "evidence", you only have "indizien-beweise" (sorry, know only the german word) = only parts of a puzzle that we cannot see the whole picture, only parts of it ... remember "Lamarck" and "Darwin" wrote 2 different theories on the origin of species ... and now we say darwin was (particullary) right and lamarck not, but this is not 100% right, as also some parts of the evolution-theory of lamarck is (in my eyes) right ..-

// i find it interessting to see 2 or more comunities that do not directly relate to KDE discussing on kde-look about what is right and what wrong

i'm not religious (i try not to be in any way), but i like the bible, because it is a well written book; of the same reason i also like "the origin of species" and also "kungfutse" and other great literature like "moby dick" :-) ... if you are religious, please read the whole book before citing out of it, and one more thing: if you create backgrounds with quotes out of books with religious background, try to make them great-looking and not so shiny and "kitschig" (sorry, also here i know only the german word) ... not the quantity is important, the quality matters much more

Report

0xdeadbeef

17 years ago

-homo sapiens has evolved from other species that do not live any more ... we do not have ancestors in the living species!!
-----------
'Species' is a word invented by man, biology itself only knows individuals. We tend to think in categories because it's easier to grasp, yet this is not accurate. Having said this, members of different species share some ancestors with us. These may be long deceased, but they existed. Members of some species share closer ancestors with us than others, for example your average human is (highly probably) more closely related to a random chimp than to a random crocodile. The random crocodile is, however, a very, very, very, very, extremely distant cousin of yours.

-some religions maybe claim there is no evolution, but also in science you do not have "evidence", you only have "indizien-beweise" (sorry, know only the german word)
--------------
The word 'Indizienbeweise' is an oxymoron. For native english speakers: 'Beweise' means 'proof', 'Indizien' derives from 'to indicate'. Roughly, an 'Indizienbeweis' is a piece of evidence that points to something, but doesn't relly prove it. What he means, I think, is 'evidence' as opposed to 'proof'.

As nothing can be actually proven beyond doubt, we enter a very academic discussion here, so I'd rather talk about what is reasonable to assume. And evolution is, taking the mathematical nature of evolution and the preconditions found in biology into account, pretty plausible. That, and the many, many fossils make evolution about as solid as gravity (which is a theory as well).

= only parts of a puzzle that we cannot see the whole picture, only parts of it ... remember "Lamarck" and "Darwin" wrote 2 different theories on the origin of species ... and now we say darwin was (particullary) right and lamarck not, but this is not 100% right, as also some parts of the evolution-theory of lamarck is (in my eyes) right ..-
-----------
Oh, there were a lot of theories on the topic. Darwin was the most prominent to propose an evolutionary model, which bought him a lot of trouble as most biologists of his time liked the idea of a well designed and easy system of species. However, Darwin's theory was flawed. Most theories are, in fact. It would be pretty dumb to claim that you have know the one whole truth (a token of my esteem for religion ;) ) in my opinion, but that is not what science is about. Science (in the most widely interpretation) is about developing a model for nature that works. Christianity as a political theory worked for a while, but began to show it's flaws pretty quickly once it was established. These flaws include, namely, that it can easily be exploited by ruthless people. In this respect, it's quite similar to communism. Theories in natural science, however, tend to evolve. Just take a look at how our model of the universe developed from flat earth centered to the relativity thing we have today. We observe, we learn, and develop models accordingly. However, all of these theories are workable to a certain degree. When you're measuring a piece of land, it's usually accurate enough to assume it was flat, although in reality this is not so. This does, as well, apply to the evolution theory. When you go shopping for meat, you don't care wheter beef and pork have some distant relation because it has a different taste. The species modle suffices, and it is easier to handle. However, the evolutionary model is more accurate. So, although I don't think the evolutionary model is the final truth, it works for todays biological applications. And, more importantly, future theories will probably not be completely different, but rather extend the evolution theory. The coevolution of genes and memes is an example of such an extension, just for instance.

... if you are religious, please read the whole book before citing out of it,
-----------
Oh, oh, oh, I got an URL on this: http://www.meninhats.com/d/20020906.html

Well, that's my 2¢ on the matter.

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

uh huh. Yeah...

Report

uninet

17 years ago

Thanks, as always, for your great wallpaper! This one really looks excellent. :-)

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

Thanks! Yeah, I kind of like it too!

Tim

Report

12345678910
Be the first to comment
File (click to download) Version Description Downloads Date Filesize DL OCS-Install MD5SUM
*Needs pling-store or ocs-url to install things
Pling
0 Affiliates
Details
license
version
updated Nov 15 2003
added Nov 15 2003
downloads 24h
0
mediaviews 24h 0
pageviews 24h 0