The Year's Coolest New Species

Darwin's hits just keep coming, from the smallest snake to the biggest bug

Whether it evolved or not, It is God's hits and God gets the glory.

Cool snake. Looks like a variant of the blindsnake we have on Guam. Same size so that's not the smallest. Not sure where ours came from. Texas? Mexico? Who knows.

Whether or not Darwin deserves the credit, at least we have proof he realy existed.

God? less than a theory, A myth. Not a single shread of evidence.
Thousands of conflicting ancidotes strongly believed by billions around the world. But that ain't evidence.

Clearly, GeeBob was making an attempt to say that though he clearly believes in creation, he does not believe that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.
All Sir Repetitious did was make a biased attack on GeeBob.

News Flash for Sir Repetitious: in no logical way can you make an argument that God doesn't exist simply by stating that there is not a single shred of evidence. It's kind of funny that you would say something like that in regards to an article about animals that were found to exist this year, when previously, there was, yes, not a shred of evidence to support their existence.
As to the God thing, it's more like there is not a single shred of evidence that you personally accept. Also, just for future reference, Shred is spelled without an A.

Also, ain't is not a word, nor is it a proper contraction.

ShopCartBandit, there is one major problem with your line of reasoning. If we are expected to believe in something without any rationale or evidence of its existence then we must except everything. So with God comes faeries, because we have no shred of evidence. With God comes Vishnu, Shiva, Thor, Thoth, Cthulhu, and any number of other divine entities and deities throughout all religions who have the exact same amount of proof that God does. One must except leprechauns, dragons, witchcraft, UFOs, Tezcatlipoca, orgone, flying monkeys, demons, angels, mirror universes, string theory, and any number of equal absurdities because they all have about the same amount of factual evidence of existence.

You are also incorrect. 'Ain't' is a word. You can find it in a number of dictionaries. It is admittedly nonstandard slang, but much of language comes about through usages as opposed to writ of academia. I'd argue that most Americans understand the word "ain't" a lot better than say histol or dendrochronologist, but hey, that's me.

@sir-reptitious: A theory clearly has its own limitations does it not? As a theory, it is subject to change and is not absolute as one theory could be simply debunked by the next. In our current state of reality and human limitations, we will never fully understand or know 100% why things work as they do. In addition, evidence itself can never be taken to be 100% correct. Weather you have “evidence” or not we must all start by believing something, so we make leaps of faith to believe that which we believe.

Is it not though that by believing that there is no God and no evidence to support His existence is to claim to know 100% everything, but if in fact we do not as humans have the ability to know everything then to say God does not exist is a paradoxical statement/claim?

@Double_K: Your proposal that we accept everything can also be taken that we accept nothing.

I am not trying to propose anything - as anything I could propose would be in general bias as to be my own belief. I just wish to clarify on the current statements made is all.
so I will leave you with this...

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have." ~ Albert Einstein

Ok on subject, I recall seeing somewhere that with the proper amount of cash you can in fact name one of the apparently many new species as you see fit. Also, What’s the scientific name of this small snake?

Since we're bringing in theories, it's all The Big Bang's glory.

OK, i'll admit it. I'm pissed cus I CREATED the Micro-Snake(tm), and you're giving credit to this god guy, out of IGNORANCE of how it really happened.
(this is an equaly valid explaination, it doesn't matter how many beleave it.)

That's right, Micro-Snake(tm).
I created it, I get to name it.

"Darwin's hits just keep coming"
Oh come on you Darwinian fundamentalist fanatic propagandists!

What the hell does Darwin have to do with this snake!? Nothing at all.

Spare us the materialism plugs please.

sir-reptitious: As someone with the FSM as his avatar you're really living up to the expected level of intelligence associated with FSM idiots. (i.e. IQ = shoe size)

Hint: we know where spaghetti comes from and what it's made of. If you want to see some fly I'd be glad to throw some at you. Then you could start worshiping... or not.

Maybe you could get an education before posting any further ill-reasoned tripe. We all know you 'believe' in hopes that there really be no God who might disturb you're imaginary little world?

Turd;
Are you suggesting: We can't know everything, so don't try, just accept the most comforting explaination.
Which is what? ...that Santa Clause runs the show, and we go to a paradise full of virgins for the wrap party?

I do not like the idea that the universe does not give a sh*t about me, my time is short, and then there is nothing.
But the only other explainations i've heard are fantasy and whishfull thinking.
I am an adult, tell me the truth, even if it is bad.

ShopCartBandit;
"...in regards to an article about animals that were found to exist this year, when previously, there was, yes, not a shred of evidence to support their existence."
Did i miss something? Did they find Bigfoot?
Nobody falsely claimed any of these existed, before the evidence.

Uh...
Do you realy need someone to explain to you that FSM is a sarcastic satire? What is your IQ?

If you don't believe that i created the Micro-Snake(tm), why do you believe this god person did? I offer as much ill-reasoned tripe... em... I mean... as much proof as he does.

You can not prove the non-existence of something..that is absurd...the argument that, You cannot prove that God doesn't exist, is absurd. you must look everywhere and at all times to prove that and then record it...lol..clearly impossible... if you make the claim that god exists then prove it...if you can't do that then you have no right to claim it...

If you take your argument and change the word from god to Santa or Fairies and live your life accordingly and most importantly tried to FORCE other people to live their lives by your ridiculous rules then you would be sedated and locked away...and rightly so...to live your life based on the evil sadistic laws of a cruel evil sadistic Daddy figure that controls even your very thinking and that you can't even prove he exists is mentally unstable, it wreaks of insecurities, immaturity and the need to be comforted from the big bad world by an imagined all-powerful entity that only your imagination limits.

God is the lazy mans explanation to the world and universe..."I can't explain this so god done it"..."i can't explain that so god done it"...get off your lazy asses and find the proper explanation or at least take the next generation as close to that explanation as you can.

Vigier;
"...Oh come on you Darwinian fundamentalist fanatic propagandists!...Spare us the materialism plugs please."

Well Ghaud Forbid!! that a Science writer should mention Darwin in a Science article, in a Science mag/website!! without someone (geebob) getting Politicly Correct, and reminding us of the conflicting, discredited, unsuported myth that GOD used Darwin to create these new species just last year. Glory be to him, that he is still on the job.

Vigier, you are on the wrrooong website.

First of all the god in the books that have been written for the most part does not exist. The God that created this universe does. Science has said there is no such thing as spontaneous generation but to believe in the big bang or God then science must be wrong.I don't think a big invisible man that punishes us for wrong and rewards us for right is jaunting around poking his nose into our affairs, but even the densest fool like sir-reptitious must believe that something doesn't come from nothing. I understand that most humans cannot wrap their minds around the concept that time and space are one and that the time we perceive isn't even "real". But to deny an order to the chaos (an order that I refer to as God for the lack of a better word) is to be even more ignorant than most in our species are. This force is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end and they are one and the same because reality is far greater than we can perceive.

To deny intelligence behind evolution is only proof that your own intelligence is limited or that you have been traumatized in some way and have decided there is "no god". Either scenario just brings you to the truth - we don't know anything about anything. We are hairless apes with a modicum of intellect that is just enough to make us dangerous.

Tabula,

You cannot even prove to me that you exist. Please don't claim that you do anymore as I rarely win an argument with myself and I don't want to try. Tabula at least seems to be some intelligent part of my imagination. But sir-reptitious must be some lower function in my brain, I choose to believe he represents my sphincter because every time he speaks there is an odor in the air reminiscent of feces.

Turd Ferguson - as for the assertion that God's existence (please refer to my definition of God) cannot be proven, the truth is it cannot to people who will not accept the evidence or write it off. It is easily proven to someone stupid because they will believe things that intelligent people won't. It is hard to prove to the intelligent but possible if their notions aren't tainted by emotion. All one has to do is look at the order of things at any level to know there was something that caused that order. If they don't want to get into semantics about what to call it (I prefer God) then that is fine. Call it "the great donkey sneeze", "the big bang" or "the big bopper" for all I care but the proof that the order exists should be readily evident to anyone simply because they exist.

@: gregsemailaccount

Reason and rationality need to be used where god is concerned, or anything i suppose..if not then everything is up for grabs.

I can prove that I exist within our own realm of reason and rationality...all you are doing is taking the extreme skeptical position and twisting language and logic to try and prove or disprove this or that...

you can say and do anything with language and logic...that is not physical proof/ evidence...this is what is necessary to prove the existence of something that falls within our realm of reason and rationality...we MUST use reason and rationality in our lives or we are ruled by fairies and imaginary beings...so to claim that a god exists without any evidence to support the claim IS unreasonable and irrational...to live your life accordingly is equally unreasonable and irrational and to try and force people to live their lives by your rules is insane...

now couple langauge and logic with reason and rationilty and you have an entirely different ball game altogether...any statement or logical conclusion you make MUST fall within the bounderies of reason and rationality or Harry Potter and the pink flying elephant do indeed exist in our "real" world...that is absolutely absurd...Now if you can prove, with physical evidence, that the pink flying elephant does indeed exist then you would expand our realm of reason and rationality..but if you continue to claim it exists without any evidence then you are being unreasonable and irrational...

Science is based on reason and rationality and it uses langauge and logic to communicate its findings. It NEVER falls outside of this or else it would be unreasonable and irrational...

your definition of a god is just agnostisim. what you call god people call nature but if you continue to insist that it is indeed a "god"..then you must do one of two things...prove that your "god" exists or simply change your term from god to nature.

Sir-rep: Will you please prove to me that this "Darwin" of yours exist?

Have you ever seen him? Talked with him?

Do you have any empirical evidence that he exist?

You have his writings, or at least writings that are supposed to be his. You have his teachings, as passed down by others. You have the common belief of fellow believers. You have artifacts that you have been told where his. You have real places that you have heard that he was. Yet, you do not have one lick of fact. Just common assumption.

If you wish to be a sceptic about God, fine, but be consistantly sceptical about everything else in your life. The rest of us will go right on believing in a host of things that we have never seen nor experienced ourselves.

As for evidence for God, you mention billions of conflicting reports. True. Yet you miss the forest for the trees. BILLIONS OF REPORTS. Might not be able to say much about God, but plenty of evidence there that there is one (or many).

Darwin believed in God too, by the way. As did Newton, Galleleo, Copurnicus, Linneus, Aristotle, Pathagoras, and just about ever other scientist you can name. Most scientist still do.

Oh, and answer me this: What do you call someone who believes that the world is different than what almost everyone else believes it is and actually percieves the world that way with his senses? (hint: look in some Psycology books)

"...but even the densest fool like sir-reptitious..."
"...sir-reptitious must be some lower function in my brain..."

Jesus! Have we resorted to name-calling now?
Is that allowed?
Then fuck you and the god you rode in on.

they warned me that fundies couldn't grasp sarcasim.

Oakspar,
take up your questions with tabula.
He is very good with a serious discussion, and so far i agree with what he has said.

But i'm not gonna waste my time being serious.
NOBODY here is gonna allow themself to change their mind on this issue, by anything anybody else here says.

My modest goal was to take geebob to task for demanding tribute to gOD for a SCIENCE article on a SCIENCE website.
(Gee! Bob! what were you thinking?)

The universe doesn't give a dam what you believe.
The universe doesn't give a dam what I believe.
Or what anybody believes.
It don't matter how many people believe (whatever).
Or that i'm outnumbered.
The universe just keeps on doing it's thing.
You can't change it with your wishfull thinking.
Belief is irrelevant.
Worship is irrelevant.
GOD is irrelevant.

Non-belief is also irrlevant, but happens to be correct.

Ahem...

Irrelevant

Tabula,

You said "you can say and do anything with language and logic...that is not physical proof/ evidence...this is what is necessary to prove the existence of something that falls within our realm of reason and rationality" yet you try to prove you are correct and assert your own existence is real then try to argue semantics and tell me that I must call my God "nature" my God created nature, and therefore is nature but it is much more. It is the logic and structure behind the universe and even sir-reptitious has a basic logical structure (though he is clearly a rebel against logic).

I find the semantics of calling my perception of the structure of the universe "nature" to be too limiting and the language being as limited as it is the only thing that is close enough to what I perceive - "God". I'm sorry if it offends other religions or faiths (such as your agnosticism if I'm reading you right) but it is the only single word that relates the power and intelligence I believe to be behind the structure. To call that force nature to me "cheapens" it. I will however compromise if you wish and refer to is as "Generation of Order from Disarray" as this imparts what I need to convey. So it is decided. I will no longer refer to it as "God" or you "nature", we will call it "Generation of Order from Disarray" or GOD for short. Deal?

Things like String Theory can be proved (or semi-proved) with mathematics, can God be proved with mathematics? String theory is more logical to believe then some magical entity in the clouds granting people wishes and prayers. I do believe though that some entity, whether it be a 6 foot life form, or some super particle is and was responsible for the creation of the universe.

I'm more inclined to believe in the ideas of deism:

"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."

I guess it all depends on what an individuals definition of "God" is; God from the christian bible, God being a super particle, God being the sun? you get my point :P

"(though he is clearly a rebel against logic)"
Not true. I just can't bring myself to be serious about something as brain dead as (blind)faith.

Sir Rept,

God? less than a theory, A myth. Not a single shred of evidence.

There's tons of evidence and the evidence isn't for anything. The question isn't what the evidence proves. The question is how to interpret it best.

For a world where there are rational, moral, aesthetic, spiritual, consciously aware, intentional creatures who derive meaning from all these aspects of their existence and meaning from the intrinsic worth that we are inclined to see in each other, the best interpretation is that there is transcendence which we are apart. These aspects of our existence aren't peripheral to our existence. They are central to what gives us meaning. You may find the materialism to be a satisfactory cohort to these aspects of our existence and you may have faith that one day, (and that day most certainly has not come.) they will be materialistically explained, but it's not rational to expect anyone else to share this faith and we have good reason to believe that materialism undermines that which gives life meaning. And no scientific study will ever be published explaining why we shouldn't take these considerations as epistemically basic, and there lies the heart of the problem.

Of course much of what I have appealed to has a centrally subjective component, and if that's a problem, then we can know nothing as everything we know about the world, that which we have reason to believe is objective is all second hand information which comes through the subjective experience. It cannot be the case that everything that must be believed must be subject to objective verification because there is no way to objectively prove the statement that "everything that must be believed must be subject to objective verification." It's the same with science (which is not a completely objective endevor). Try to make it into a scalpel for all proposed items of knowledge and it ends up cutting itself to pieces since their are no scientific ways to confirm so many of the assumptions of science (uniformitarianism, the rationality of the universe and its laws, cause and effect, etc.)

Thousands of conflicting ancidotes strongly believed by billions around the world. But that ain't evidence.

Even science has its contradictions. Currently, the conflicts between relativity and quantum mechanics do not have a clear solution. So should we abandon science? Seems to me that a better solution is to continue to seek for a solution. It is similar with religion. It could be the case that everyone is wrong. But it is just as possible that someone is right and the other conflicting accounts are all wrong and progress in understanding can be made. It could be that some of the percieved problems with one, or some of the proposed answers are unanswerable, or these problems could have solutions.

I just can't bring myself to be serious about something as brain dead as (blind)faith.

Good, and equally short sited is the idea that we have any knowledge without some sort of epistemic risk (ie faith). All knowledge entails the risk that it either cannot be absolutely proven or it is somewhat conceivable that it could be wrong. Even logic, which is on stronger epistemic footing than science cannot be absolutely proven by any means outside of itself.

sir-reptitious,
You say:
"Not true. I just can't bring myself to be serious about something as brain dead as (blind)faith" and earlier referred to me as a "fundie" but again your logic is flawed. I am a non-christian agnostic and have faith only in what I have observed. What I have observed is order. That order points to something we can't understand or explain. It's very existence leads even the most scientific of minds to the same conclusion - there is something we have not yet observed that is the genesis of that order. I choose to call that something God even if that pisses christians, agnostics, muslims or atheists off because it is the only word in this ape-grunt language we have that imparts the intelligence behind the order. You can deny any god's existence you want or call my God "the big bang" or "nature" but the semantics is wrong. The phrase "big bang" explains what happened but doesn't address the issue of the structure and design that cannot be viewed as random. The word "nature" only addresses the structure and design while ignoring what caused it. I think your only problem with my chain of thought is that I choose the word God to describe it. That seems to be because you have a problem with christianity and/or the traditional monotheist constructs and deities that society has worshiped. I am uncertain why you would put me in the category with these people or their belief system when the difference has been made clear.

All,

I find that tabula, geebob, cookies and myself have nearly the same view though the wording may be causing some issues. Oakspar is clearly a christian which I respect but disagree with. I cannot be certain what sir-rep believes. I am pointing toward atheism but having a hard time believing that because of how vehemently de-vangelistic (I'd like to coin that term officially) he is. I think he's unsure of his faith (or lack thereof) and wants someone to help him sort it out.

sir-rep - what is your belief system and what specific things have brought you to have that belief? You are hard to read and often too hostile to take seriously but I am trying.

sir-reptile
God knows that you exist
think about it

I enjoyed all the foolishness, so does GOD, HE says mans ideas are foolishness to HIM, and that only a fool would not be able to see evidence of HIM in HIS wonderful creation.... in fact the whole universe cries out in praise to HIM, and well it should, HE is loving, merciful and deserving in spite of mans refusing to honor, and praise their creator. I see mans foolishness in his avoidance of responsibility for his own actions, right down to the point of denying GOD, so he won't have to accept that eventually his behavior will be judged, and a price will be paid.I see a loving creator who made a way in HIS infinate wisdom for man to connect to HIM through Jesus Christ and have those actions negated, forgiven, paid for, and I see that great gift trampled on, instead of grasped as the lifeline it is. I see this planet as a ship of fools.
I know the more we explore our planet the more varieties of plants and animals we will be priviledged to discover and enjoy. We live in an awesome world created for us, for our enjoyment, by our loving Father, GOD.

"and wants someone to help him sort it out."
Greg;

GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME.

klijah;

DUCK

Lightning bolts are headed your way.
You are taking my name in vain.
Pretending you know what i am thinking, putting words in my mouth: "...HE says mans ideas are..."
That's a bigger sin than mere insults.
And I will not tolerate it.

- GOD
(aka sir-reptitious)

I knew I shouldn't have extended him the courtesy of speaking directly to him like an equal. You, sir, have issues.

When sir-rep said:

"I do not like the idea that the universe does not give a sh*t about me, my time is short, and then there is nothing.
But the only other explainations i've heard are fantasy and whishfull thinking.
I am an adult, tell me the truth, even if it is bad."

bad grammar and spelling aside I thought he meant it..... i will now continue to direct my comments only to persons I feel qualify as intelligent, sorry sir-rep.

i think it's funny how article's about science always bring on cat fights between the readers about their faith. its just an article about science. why mention christianity when you know there are tons of non believers waiting to argue about it? and for the non believers, just let it go. it's irritating. i also find it very amusing how people try to use big words to show off how intelligent they are. nobody cares. if you want to show off how intelligent you are write a book.

i'm a dern freshman in college and i get on here and see all these people i know are older than me arguing like kids. it just shows immaturity exist through all ages. and i'm not pointing that toward the people who are just debating ideas for there knowledge, but toward the idiots who just want to argue because they think they are right and everybody needs to just listen to them since they know everything.