Support NeoGAF

[Cameron122]

the aliens put that there as to test our faith in god

 

[freenudemacusers]

the aliens put that there as to test our faith in god

angels disguised as aliens

from the future

 

[The Adder]

To be fair when it comes topics with religious/scientific implications being a jerk is almost par for the course for either side. And for whatever reason evolution is a controversy in some religious folks...

You can't say "same thing both sides" here. No one in this topic brought up religion until the people who thought "discovery about evolution, time to shit on religion" chimed in.

 

[NTIETS13A_Superiority]

Interesting how some people treat science itself almost like a kind of faith. They take time to praise science and denigrate religion preemptively almost as if to make themselves feel better about their beliefs instead of commenting on how interesting the discovery itself is like a normal human being.

That is silly... Science is just a word. It just happens to represent something logical and trustworthy. Science is always right. People might not be. Science is science. Science is about archiving truth no matter what it happens to be. Science may not even explain everything in universe as some thing could just be illogical and random. Enough of this sillyness. Let's rock.

 

[Opiate]

Interesting how some people treat science itself almost like a kind of faith. They take time to praise science and denigrate religion preemptively almost as if to make themselves feel better about their beliefs instead of commenting on how interesting the discovery itself is like a normal human being.

The actual purpose of the comparison in this particular case is precisely to show that science is not a faith. In this case, what we're seeing is new evidence arriving, and then seeing scientific beliefs changing based on that new evidence. We used to think modern humans were much younger on an evolutionary time scale; evidence comes in suggesting humans are older; science adjusts accordingly.

This is explicit, complete and absolute contrast to the concept of faith, which is by definition something you believe in regardless of the evidence. If you have faith in X, then no amount of new information will adjust or revise your view of X.

That's why this particular sort of correction is so important. While I will again emphasize that religion and science are often compatible, this particular situation highlights the most important difference between the two systems; science adjusts to new facts and new evidence, while faith does not.

 

[V_Arnold]

I'm sympathetic to this view generally, but this happens to highlight the primary contrast between science and religion.

Science adjusts its conclusions and understandings as new evidence is introduced; by definition, religion does not do this, as it is based on faith and not evidence-based conclusions. Most primary religious texts (e.g. The Bible, The Bhagvad-Gita, the Quran, etc.) are viewed as the inerrant word of God or of the Prophet.

This distinction is, again, the most significant difference between the two philosophies, which are otherwise not necessarily at odds. They agree on lots of things; most religions, for example, believe that helping people is a good thing, and most science operates on that pretext as well (e.g. medical science). Both science and religion view the universe as an awesome, beautiful place.

So science and religion aren't necessarily or always at odds. But in this particular way, they are; science corrects itself when new evidence is presented that contradicts previously held belief. Religion does not. Again, I completely agree that people often take gratuitous potshots at religion, and frequently view science and religion as absolutely antithetical, which they are not.

But religions DOES change. Whenever enough believers become incompatible with the original view, or if there is a change, different sects/cults/sub-religions form, and they might surpass the originals in popularity in some cases. Christianity basically shattered into pieces more than a thousand years ago because it was unable to internally resolve the differences in how they view and understand the Holy Trinity. Hinduism gave "birth" to Mahayana and Theraveda Buddhism, and there were constantly new belief systems emerging as buddhism got adopted in neighboring countries. Even the basics of hindu beliefs got adopted from older belief system.

And let us not even bring volatile, ever-changing stuff like New Age and all that. There, beliefs are constantly adjusted, sometimes even in the face of scientific discoveries. Flexibility is there, imho. Just as you would not want a scientific physics textbook from 1106 to represent reality right now, you probably would not want the views presented by the Old Testament (or the "new" one, for that matter) taken as guides to life in the *now* either. There are new, better, more useful ways to look at the world on that side too, imho.

(But, in my opinion, the best alternative if we learn vigoroously and have some kind of internalized, non-nihilistic dialogue with ourself. All-knowing, all-depressed is not my cup of tea, ever-searching and ever-optimistic is.)

 

[GregLombardi]

Wow. We really know nothing about anything, do we?

 

[Anura]

You can't say "same thing both sides" here. No one in this topic brought up religion until the people who thought "discovery about evolution, time to shit on religion" chimed in.

No, I can. I said it as a general statement and not specifically referring to this thread. Internet religious debates are nothing but toxic to everyone involved and both sides are awful during them.

 

[Cirruss]

Oh that's too good, made me legitimately lol.

 

[Opiate]

But religions DOES change. Whenever enough believers become incompatible with the original view, or if there is a change, different sects/cults/sub-religions form, and they might surpass the originals in popularity in some cases.

Religion does not change based on evidence, data, or fact, which is the important point here. As you said, changes to religion are typically based on popular consensus or sometimes based on executive order (e.g. Pope says X, now X is law). This is very distinct from changes based on facts and evidence.

Often, facts are highly unpopular with both the populace and with the authorities; in religion, such facts may take decades or centuries to take hold if they ever do, while science does not care whether an idea has widespread belief or is deeply unpopular, whether an idea is intuitively thrilling or profoundly depressing; facts and evidence are the substrate through which scientific inquiry operates. In science, it does not matter how matter how many Nobel prizes you've won, who you know, how smart you are, or how many medals you have on your uniform -- if your belief disagrees with empirical experiment, then you're wrong, the end.

 

[Nibel]

Denisovan sounds like a badass Mass Effect alien race with dinosaur heads

 

[Thursday War]

i dont get it

 

[Cameron122]

angels disguised as aliens

from the future

"THE NAME OF THE PLACE

BABYLON 5"

 

[kingofthedead45]

i dont get it

Its from a gaf Photoshop. Lol

 

[Tesseract]

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

That's not human DNA, it is human ancestor DNA. They are not homo sapiens.

Don't be a racist

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

HAHAHHA

 

[DanteFox]

The actual purpose of the comparison in this particular case is precisely to show that science is not a faith. In this case, what we're seeing is new evidence arriving, and then seeing scientific beliefs changing based on that new evidence. We used to think modern humans were much younger on an evolutionary time scale; evidence comes in suggesting humans are older; science adjusts accordingly.

This is explicit, complete and absolute contrast to the concept of faith, which is by definition something you believe in regardless of the evidence. If you have faith in X, then no amount of new information will adjust or revise your view of X.

That's why this particular sort of correction is so important. While I will again emphasize that religion and science are often compatible, this particular situation highlights the most important difference between the two systems; science adjusts to new facts and new evidence, while faith does not.

Spoken like someone who has no real understanding of religion or religious communities. People adjust scriptural interpretations based on science. Religion isn't some hivemind. As for faith itself, there are different definitions. One is similar to the one you outlined, the other is an unproven belief grounded in experience and is more similar to trust.

 

[CornBurrito]

Interesting how some people treat science itself almost like a kind of faith. They take time to praise science and denigrate religion preemptively almost as if to make themselves feel better about their beliefs instead of commenting on how interesting the discovery itself is like a normal human being.

I wasn't aware Creationism was something that common among the religious.

My question is: How do we know that our fossil record and DNA dating methods are precise and accurate?

Here is a good video that covers some of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlMfqzihNTE

 

[Mariolee]

Religion does not change based on evidence, data, or fact, which is the important key here. As you said, changes to religion are typically based on popular consensus or sometimes based on executive order (e.g. Pope says X, now X is law). This is very distinct from changes based on facts and evidence. Often, facts are highly unpopular with both the populace and with the authorities.

I think in many cases our interpretation of a religion's recording of the origin of life changes in relation to new scientific evidence. The key word being that our interpretation changes. The religious text itself does not change, as people hold it as law.

I guess it's like if we found a rock. We automatically make interpretations of where it came from. As we gather more evidence, our interpretation of it changes but the rock itself stays the same. We just interpret it differently. Religious text is like that rock. That's why many Christians nowadays say that Genesis is merely a poetic recounting of the origin of life, rather than a literal statement.

Some might say this shows how shaky the Christian faith is, while others might note that it shows how adaptive it is. Depends on your bias. I don't know if you can consider this "religion changing based on evidence" however, but rather our interpretation of it changes based on evidence.

 

[Daigoro]

omfg

 

[Tesseract]

Religion does not change based on evidence, data, or fact, which is the important point here. As you said, changes to religion are typically based on popular consensus or sometimes based on executive order (e.g. Pope says X, now X is law). This is very distinct from changes based on facts and evidence.

Often, facts are highly unpopular with both the populace and with the authorities; in religion, such facts may take decades or centuries to take hold if they ever do, while science does not care whether an idea has widespread belief or is deeply unpopular, whether an idea is intuitively thrilling or profoundly depressing; facts and evidence are the substrate through which scientific inquiry operates. In science, it does not matter how matter how many Nobel prizes you've won, who you know, how smart you are, or how many medals you have on your uniform -- if your belief disagrees with empirical experiment, then you're wrong, the end.

damn son, get in that richard feynman ass.

 

[Opiate]

Spoken like someone who has no real understanding of religion or religious communities. People adjust scriptural interpretations based on science. Religion isn't some hivemind. As for faith itself, there are different definitions. One is similar to the one you outlined, the other is an unproven belief grounded in experience and is more similar to trust.

This is not open to discussion. This is literally the definition of faith; a belief in something regardless of evidence or proof. Both of the definitions you just applied fit that description. Faith is by literal definition the belief in something regardless of evidence.

 

[rexor0717]

Holy fuck, I laughed.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I read that too, and I must be misunderstanding something about how this works, because 400,000 years is roughly 800 half-lives. And 1/2^800 is such a small number, I don't see how there would be anything meaningful left even the initial sample was all the DNA in all the cells in a million people.

According to the internet there are roughly 6 billion base pairs per human diploid cell, and roughly 100 trillion cells in the human body. So one human (or denisovan in this case) would contribute about 6*10^23 base pairs.

edit: That means a million people would contribute roughly 10^30 base pairs, but 1/2^800 is about 10^-240..

edit 2: In other words, conditions in this cave in Spain had to be such that the DNA's half life was closer to 5000 years than 500 years, in order to be able to retrieve a sample of length in tens or hundreds of bases long, assuming there were initially about 100-1000 individuals in the cave.

I should have made this clearer in my initial post, but apparently the half life can vary quite a lot depending upon conditions; the samples which the scientists analyzed to arrive at 521 years were preserved at an average temperature of about 13 degrees Celsius (the bones were all within 8,000 years old), whereas the ideal condition for preservation up to 1.5 million years is -5 degrees.

 

[Byakuya769]

Ugh. We didn't smang them did we?

 

[CornBurrito]

Actually reading every response, it is actually really scary how people like DanteFox and CorvoSol consider bashing Creationism to be the same as bashing religion. Like really scary.

 

[DanteFox]

This is not open to discussion. This is literally the definition of faith; a belief in something regardless of evidence or proof. Both of the definitions you just applied fit that description. Faith is by literal definition the belief in something regardless of evidence.

Not quite. There's a difference in believing something without scientific evidence and believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. One might have faith that a spouse is loyal. This is subject to change if evidence were presented to the contrary later on. Nonetheless, one still believes that one's spouse will not cheat, even without proof.

Actually reading every response, it is actually really scary how people like DanteFox and CorvoSol consider bashing Creationism to be the same as bashing religion. Like really scary.

Opiate didn't specify creationism and instead proceeded to generalize not only one but all of religion.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

#DEAD

10/10

 

[waypoetic]

and that's the face of my nightmare tonight

 

[Jackben]

Actually reading every response, it is actually really scary how people like DanteFox and CorvoSol consider bashing Creationism to be the same as bashing religion. Like really scary.

Can't we just ignore religion and laugh at fallengorn's photoshop while discussing the implications of the study to the scientific community? =(

 

[freenudemacusers]

that photoshop is god-tier.

 

[RustyNails]

Sooo...Prometheus?

 

[DanteFox]

Can't we just ignore religion and laugh at fallengorn's photoshop while discussing the implications of the study to the scientific community? =(

Yeah you're right. I fell for the bait, sorry dude. =[

I'll stop.

 

[KHarvey16]

Not quite. There's a difference in believing something without scientific evidence and believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. One might have faith that a spouse is loyal. This is subject to change if evidence were presented to the contrary later on. Nonetheless, one still believes that one's spouse will not cheat, even without proof.

Someone that believes their partner is loyal actually "loses faith" when they are presented with proof their significant other cheated. That's 100% consistent with the explanation you're being given. Maintaining that faith necessarily ignores any evidence to the contrary.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

so basically Lord of The Rings

what we got here a high elf?

 

[teruterubozu]

Pretty cool. I'm not sure why the scientists were shocked though. It was 400,000 years ago, how could we ever know what really was going on back then with any accuracy.

Scientists are rarely "puzzled," "shocked" or "befuddled," but it sounds cool in articles. If anything the only thing scientists think is "needs more research."

 

[V_Arnold]

Religion does not change based on evidence, data, or fact, which is the important point here. As you said, changes to religion are typically based on popular consensus or sometimes based on executive order (e.g. Pope says X, now X is law). This is very distinct from changes based on facts and evidence.

Often, facts are highly unpopular with both the populace and with the authorities; in religion, such facts may take decades or centuries to take hold if they ever do, while science does not care whether an idea has widespread belief or is deeply unpopular, whether an idea is intuitively thrilling or profoundly depressing; facts and evidence are the substrate through which scientific inquiry operates. In science, it does not matter how matter how many Nobel prizes you've won, who you know, how smart you are, or how many medals you have on your uniform -- if your belief disagrees with empirical experiment, then you're wrong, the end.

Empirical evidence is still evidence, though. Not the kind you might be looking for, but it is still pretty useful for individuals. That is why religion, or belief systems overall, are completely different from a scientific consensus of the time. (But, if we REALLY go down to details, there is never such a thing as scientific consensus either, which is very interesting, imho. Things are constantly changing, literally on a day to day basis. Disputes ongoing, proofs and rebuttals flying all around the place - I doubt that there is a single person on earth that can claim that his total and complete understanding of this reality is based ONLY on CURRENTLY UNDERSTOOD AS VALID theories and models, even down to the subatomic levels. It does not disprove science, but it shows how wibbly-wobbly it can just as be.)

 

[KHarvey16]

(But, if we REALLY go down to details, there is never such a thing as scientific consensus either, which is very interesting, imho.

Of course there is.

 

[Tesseract]

Not quite. There's a difference in believing something without scientific evidence and believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. One might have faith that a spouse is loyal. This is subject to change if evidence were presented to the contrary later on. Nonetheless, one still believes that one's spouse will not cheat, even without proof.



Opiate didn't specify creationism and instead proceeded to generalize not only one but all of religion.

isn't this just a conflation of faith and trust?

 

[anaron]

Oh my god

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I should have made this clearer in my initial post, but apparently the half life can vary quite a lot depending upon conditions; the samples which the scientists analyzed to arrive at 521 years were preserved at an average temperature of about 13 degrees Celsius (the bones were all within 8,000 years old), whereas the ideal condition for preservation up to 1.5 million years is -5 degrees.

It's important to make the distinction between physical half life such as that of radioactive isotopes which follows an exponential decay very closely, and biological half life, which is simply defined as the time until roughly half the molecules will lose their original properties. The latter is a more complex pattern of deterioration and is greatly affected by external conditions, including the initial number of molecules! (In exponential decay the deterioration pattern is independent of sample size). In the case of organic macromolecules like DNA, not just temperature, but also moisture has an extremely significant effect on how long a sample will be preserved, which makes sense.

I managed to learn all this during my investigation, so no harm done

edit: More about deterioration and sample contamination can be found here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-oldest-sequenced-horse-paleontology-science/

In this case, 700,000 year old prehistoric horse DNA was successfully reconstructed even though roughly 99.7% of the sample had been contaminated by microbial DNA throughout the millenia.

 

[maquiladora]

I always liked the idea that humans have been around longer than we thought.

 

[boiled goose]

Not quite. There's a difference in believing something without scientific evidence and believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. One might have faith that a spouse is loyal. This is subject to change if evidence were presented to the contrary later on. Nonetheless, one still believes that one's spouse will not cheat, even without proof.


:
Opiate didn't specify creationism and instead proceeded to generalize not only one but all of religion.

Wrong wrong wrong. U r using two different meanings of faith. Faith in people is based on evidence. Past behavior etc.

 

[Abounder]

So.....do they count as furries?

 

[Byakuya769]

Guys, I just now got the photoshop reference. Excellent!

 

[metalslimer]

Not quite. There's a difference in believing something without scientific evidence and believing in something despite evidence to the contrary. One might have faith that a spouse is loyal. This is subject to change if evidence were presented to the contrary later on. Nonetheless, one still believes that one's spouse will not cheat, even without proof.



Opiate didn't specify creationism and instead proceeded to generalize not only one but all of religion.

Sorry to bring this up but religious faith basically ignores any evidence to the contrary. What has changed in religion based on new evidence?

 

[User Name Here]

I knew it!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Scientists are rarely "puzzled," "shocked" or "befuddled," but it sounds cool in articles. If anything the only thing scientists think is "needs more research."

Science journalist are worse than gaming journos.

It's very cool to see these types of discoveries and what it means for our understanding of migration patterns of hominids. Instead it's becoming another gaf religion thread. Welp.

 

[KingFire]

That's not human DNA, it is human ancestor DNA. They are not homo sapiens.

Surprised nobody pointed this out. The article implies that it is a homo sapiens DNA. The oldest homo sapiens DNA is still 100,000 years old last time I checked.