Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Aug 20th, 2017: Jurassic Gliders

Recent Images

Aug 19th, 2017: Airglow
Aug 18th, 2017: Kim’s Bicycle
Aug 17th, 2017: Susquehanna Ice Bridge
Aug 15th, 2017: Trailer Park
Aug 14th, 2017: Pollen
Aug 13th, 2017: Rosemary Smith Can Drive Better Than You
Aug 12th, 2017: Boeing Selfie

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Tuesday Jul 13 03:56 PM

7/13/2004: Baited bull



The Spanish bull running events are always publicized but what about this? This is bull baiting, where the bull is encouraged to run right into the drink. I don't think this is the same form thought to be cruel in the past...? (I guss the damp lassie pulling herself out of the water has baited a bull, if not this one, a previous one.)

Apparently it's not bad for the bulls, not as bad as getting a NASCAR number etched right onto their sides. They get pulled out of the water quickly after they jump into it.

If they aren't hurt I imagine it would be just hilarious to see this massive animal chasing you and then, running right over the edge and making a big splash.



jaguar  Tuesday Jul 13 04:58 PM

I would have thought the biggest problem would be dropping in fast enough without jumping forward enough to have the danger of a couple of tons of angry animal with sharp bits landing on you.

I have got to go to this thing one one of these years.



ladysycamore  Tuesday Jul 13 05:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
The Spanish bull running events are always publicized but what about this? This is bull baiting, where the bull is encouraged to run right into the drink. I don't think this is the same form thought to be cruel in the past...? (I guss the damp lassie pulling herself out of the water has baited a bull, if not this one, a previous one.)
Haaaa, she almost looks like, "What Da F**k?!?!?"

Nice capture shot. :thumpsup:


sixfeet  Tuesday Jul 13 09:19 PM

This would be a hell of a lot funnier if the bull just happened to look at the camera right then.



Sun_Sparkz  Tuesday Jul 13 09:22 PM

bastards.

how can anyone get pleasure out of poor animals (whom from the pictorial evidence look to me in very bad shape, and cruelly branded) running around confused and frightned and then being tricked into plunging into the water. I love it when the bulls end up sticking people. serves them right.

bastards!



bluesdave  Tuesday Jul 13 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Sparkz
how can anyone get pleasure out of poor animals
Sparkie, those people are morons. You will never convince them of it, though. People with that mentality think that we humans are above all other life on Earth, and anything we want to do is OK. Much like some members of the US government!


Elspode  Wednesday Jul 14 01:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave
Much like some members of the US government!
Make up your mind...are you talking about humans, or are you talking about members of the US government?


wolf  Wednesday Jul 14 01:21 AM

Last I saw the score it was Bulls 18, Humans 0, no fatalities in Pamplona.



bluesdave  Wednesday Jul 14 02:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspode
Make up your mind...are you talking about humans, or are you talking about members of the US government?
Very good Els, I like that.

You do raise a good question. We know that Bush is human - no animal could be that dumb, but what about Rumsfeld?


Mundofer  Wednesday Jul 14 03:28 AM

Not everybody in spain...

Not everybody in Spain like bullfighting. In fact there is a LOT of people that hate it (like myself).

The bad thing about Pamplona is not the "encierro" in the morning (bulls wins in this one, two days ago, eight men hurted), but the same bulls are killed in the "corrida" in the afternoon.



stlbob  Wednesday Jul 14 07:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave
People with that mentality think that we humans are above all other life on Earth
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."-KJV

Here is a different version:
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life--the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals.'" -NLT

If you believe The Bible, we ARE above all other life on earth (including vegitation in a different passage).

God said it - I believe it.


Happy Monkey  Wednesday Jul 14 07:48 AM

And if you give your kid a puppy, is it funny if he pokes it with needles until it dies?



lumberjim  Wednesday Jul 14 07:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlbob

God said it - I believe it.
bullshit. god didnt say it. god didnt say anything. some fucking hippie said it 2000 years ago, and dumbasses have been regurgitating it ever since.

feh


Cyber Wolf  Wednesday Jul 14 09:44 AM

What exactly do they do with the bulls after they're killed? Is there a big BBQ afterwards or are they dumped somewhere to rot? Personally, I'd be happier to hear that they're put to good use after being killed.



pdaoust  Wednesday Jul 14 11:42 AM

"some fucking hippie"?

Quote:
some fucking hippie said it 2000 years ago, and dumbasses have been regurgitating it ever since.
dude... why the vitriol? I'm a Christian, and I don't feel the need to call Mohammed a "fucking terrorist", and I don't call Déscartes a "fucking satanist"... please be a little more tolerant, and maybe dabble a little into history and sociology before you generalise a person as a 'hippie' who said inane stuff that 'dumbasses' have been 'regurgitating', as if we're all sheep.

(true, many Christians are sheep, but that doesn't mean every Christian is a sheep...)

by the way, crazy picture. poor beastie.


Uryoces  Wednesday Jul 14 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlbob
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."-KJV

Here is a different version:
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life--the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals.'" -NLT

If you believe The Bible, we ARE above all other life on earth (including vegitation in a different passage).

God said it - I believe it.
You're proabably not going to get very far speaking on matters of faith. I'd say the board members [ha!] are pretty pragmatic. I believe in some translations that it can be interpreted as "stewardship", not "mastery". Some folks don't handle absolute power in a rational way.


jaguar  Wednesday Jul 14 11:46 AM

pdaoust you sound quite reasonable, it's just we get people like onyxcougar who feels the need to point out that evolution is clearly wrong at every given opportunity.

Personally I just love the phrase "every creeping thing that creepeth", I can't wait to work that into conversation somehow.



lumberjim  Wednesday Jul 14 11:53 AM

yeah, you're right. I was grumpy this morning. It's just that we've had that discussion several times, and it twists my nipples when people tell me that GOD said it because it's in the bible. God did not write the bible, man did. and the hippie thing was a joke, because I'm some fucking hippie. the dumbass comment was indeed a generalization, but it isn't neccessarily incorrect. dumbasses HAVE been regurgitating that line of thinking. There are several christians here that i completely respect, like smooth, OC, and mrnoodle?? (awol) but I think it's wrong for people to espouse the notion that we are free to do as we please to the other animals on this planet just because it says so in that book. If I were to believe in the christian god for the sake of this discussion, it would be my position that he'd want us to treat them with respect even as we eat them, or use their resources for clothing, etc. tormenting them and then killing them is NOT OK. I dont care if you're christian, muslim or martian. just common sense. I am tolerant of other religions. Intolerant of dumbasses.



Troubleshooter  Wednesday Jul 14 12:11 PM

As a non-xtian, but a student of people, language, and the mind, the word dominion makes perfect sense.

That was written at a time when there was a greater undestanding of the concepts of lordship and royalty. At that time dominion had more of an implied responsibility to whatever or whomever you had dominion over.

The concept "noblesse oblige" comes to mind.



jaguar  Wednesday Jul 14 12:43 PM

Similar to the suberviant wife you're meant to do a very good job of making sure is happy I think.



Skunks  Wednesday Jul 14 01:00 PM

Just to poke needles at the burning ljim:

The Qur'an came fairly directly. God -> Gabriel -> Mohammad -> people; a little while after the prophet croaked, they wrote it down. A few years later they standardized it into one authoritative copy. The society then (and its remnants now) had a strong oral culture: memorizing stuff thoroughly was commonplace. Is it this more justifiably the 'word of god'?



lumberjim  Wednesday Jul 14 01:02 PM

nope



Troubleshooter  Wednesday Jul 14 01:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
Similar to the suberviant wife you're meant to do a very good job of making sure is happy I think.
Heavy with the vitriole today jaguar?

I said it made sense in the context of the time it was written in and that it is now not understood properly by people.

As far as noblesse oblige goes, I'm fine with it as long as both people agree to the terms of the relationship. If one side or the other is unhappy about it, it is their responsibility to change the terms of that relationship or the nature of their relative power levels.

Relax.


Happy Monkey  Wednesday Jul 14 01:16 PM

:p Wasn't Christ the lamb of God?



hampor  Wednesday Jul 14 01:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
I said it made sense in the context of the time it was written in and that it is now not understood properly by people.
It also served it purpose in those times that it was rewritten, too.


jaguar  Wednesday Jul 14 01:31 PM

TS, there is no e at the end of vitriol and you misunderstood me. I was being perfectly serious. I don't know the specifics (the only books I'd read that are that fat have Stepherson on the cover) but as far as I am aware the verses to do with the wife being subservient to the man imply the same thing - a level of responsibility for well-being that comes with power. It does indeed make sense in when you take into account the temporal context and everyone loves picking their favorite bits of scripture only these days.

I was simply pointing out the similarity in the misunderstanding of both bits, that's all. Yeesh, absent minded caustic posting, I should watch that.



lumberjim  Wednesday Jul 14 01:34 PM

Quote:
TS, there is no e at the end of vitriol
WHAT'S THAT SMELL??


lumberjim  Wednesday Jul 14 01:34 PM

Oh, someone left the Irony on



lumberjim  Wednesday Jul 14 01:35 PM

i think TS thought you were referring to his and ladysidhe's brief spat that made it up here



wolf  Wednesday Jul 14 02:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
:p Wasn't Christ the lamb of God?
Very tasty with mint jelly.


pdaoust  Wednesday Jul 14 03:14 PM

lumberjim, apologies for the angry post. Your second post put things more into context for me. I agree with you that it's abhorrent that people feel like they're free to do as they please to animals (and I'd include trees, waterways, soil, etc) because it 'says so in the Bible'... that's an example of people using their religious texts to sanction their own selfishness. Maybe it's because I was raised by hippie Catholic parents (a rare breed), but I think 'stewardship' is a much better, and probably more accurate, interpretation. I just can't accept that we would be allowed to screw up the earth.

Here's my opinion about the matter. Think about this for a sec: you give your son a car for his graduation gift. He says, "thanks, Dad," and proceeds to treat it like crap, bashing the hell out of it, putting diesel fuel in it, forgetting to top up the oil, running 80 km/h in second gear, etc. Aren't you going to pretty cheesed? If I were that dad, I'd start thinking I shoulda kept the car for myself. He obviously doesn't know how to take care of the stuff I gave him. (noblesse oblige, as TS said.)

So it's my opinion that environmentalism and friendliness-to-animals is an integral part of Christianity that Christians just can't afford to ignore. It makes me very angry when Christians say that environmentalism is somehow incompatible with Christianity.

wow, am I ever off-topic!



lumberjim  Wednesday Jul 14 03:21 PM

no problem. i don't think you were out of line. and it would seem as though you are certainly not one of the afforementioned dumbasses. i see that you've been here a while, but as it's the first I recall encountering you, welcome to the sphere of my awareness. yah hippie freak!



Trilby  Wednesday Jul 14 05:25 PM

Hi--um, not to rock anymore religious boats but didn't the Qu'ran go through Abraham to? Isn't he the spiritual father of all three monotheisms? 'Course that doesn't help the little beastie, does it? I think it's fab that we started with a picture of a bull jumping into water and got to religion...way to go!



bluesdave  Wednesday Jul 14 07:53 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianna
I think it's fab that we started with a picture of a bull jumping into water and got to religion...way to go!
This often happens in the cellar. There are basically two waring groups. The Christians with their constant pushing of their ridiculous beliefs that have absolutely no scientific basis, and the atheists (or at least non believers), who strongly believe in the value of scientific research and analysis.

I can feel the heat building up under my chair already...


xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Jul 14 08:03 PM

No bulls were injured in the creation of this thread.



Trilby  Wednesday Jul 14 08:12 PM

thanks for the welcome, bluesdave---and I want to make it clear that I am hedging my bets on everything--I don't even like to say "agnostic"--BUT to play devil's advocate (all apologies to the "real" one!) nobody thought Troy was real, either. If you asked me to prove my own exsistence I don't know if I could! (but that's just me...)



Griff  Wednesday Jul 14 08:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave
This often happens in the cellar. There are basically two waring groups. The Christians with their constant pushing of their ridiculous beliefs that have absolutely no scientific basis, and the atheists (or at least non believers), who strongly believe in the value of scientific research and analysis.

I can feel the heat building up under my chair already...
Wrong again. Anyone, who has spent any time here at all, knows we have many fault lines in the cellar and many gradations of competing spiritual religous and irreligous concepts regarding scientific truth... watch your step newbie, you're on one right now.[/half joking]


Happy Monkey  Wednesday Jul 14 08:40 PM

"I think, therefore I am" is enough to prove one's own existence. But there's no way to prove one's own existence to another.



lumberjim  Wednesday Jul 14 08:46 PM

i think that if you punch them in the mouth, and they bleed, you've proven your existence. then they'd have to think about the blood running down their chin, and what caused it.



bluesdave  Wednesday Jul 14 08:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff
Wrong again. Anyone, who has spent any time here at all, knows we have many fault lines in the cellar and many gradations of competing spiritual religous and irreligous concepts regarding scientific truth... watch your step newbie, you're on one right now.[/half joking]
You are way too sensitive Griff. I never said that everyone in the cellar falls into one of two groups. It wasn't necessary for me to fill in every detail. The fact that some people fall between the two extremes, does not negate my statement at all. Some of you people seem to think that every posting has to be a PhD dissertation. That's ridiculous. I did my time at university nearly 30 years ago, and I'm trying to enjoy life a little now.[/not joking]


bluesdave  Wednesday Jul 14 08:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberjim
i think that if you punch them in the mouth, and they bleed, you've proven your existence. then they'd have to think about the blood running down their chin, and what caused it.
Right on LJ!


Trilby  Wednesday Jul 14 09:54 PM

No blood letting! And I hope I don't have to have a Ph.D dissertation on anything because I don't have one. Shucks!



mrputter  Saturday Jul 17 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberjim
i think that if you punch them in the mouth, and they bleed, you've proven your existence. then they'd have to think about the blood running down their chin, and what caused it.
Oh, not at all.

If you were to punch me in the mouth and I were to bleed all over my chin, that would prove to me that <STRONG>I</STRONG> existed, yes. But that's about it. My imagination could easily conjure up such an eventuality juuuust fine without your being involved at all, thankyouverymuch.

I'm not even entirely convinced that it would constitute proof that I existed.


lumberjim  Saturday Jul 17 11:51 PM

If I think, and therefore am, and I tell you that I did, in fact just punch you in the mouth.......you could argue that imagination point all day long. if the assumption is that anything could be a figment of imagination, then the only thing that is certainly real is your imagination. In any case, you are not in control of that imagination, so the difference between actual existence and imagined is irrelevant. You live in my reality, I live in yours. ~~I feel so close to you now....and all because I punched you in the mouth~~

I think Happy monkey said something like that in about 1/3 of the time....



xoxoxoBruce  Sunday Jul 18 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
"I think, therefore I am" is enough to prove one's own existence. But there's no way to prove one's own existence to another.
Real men (and women), don't have to.


jaguar  Sunday Jul 18 10:34 AM

Remember boy and girls, saying someone is noone is incurs a $500 fine these days.



OnyxCougar  Monday Oct 18 05:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
pdaoust you sound quite reasonable, it's just we get people like onyxcougar who feels the need to point out that evolution is clearly wrong at every given opportunity.
I don't think I said evolution is "clearly wrong", but it's certainly NOT provable, and it's certainly not science. Evolution is a RELIGION, just as much as Christianity, Buddhism, Paganism, Islam, Confucianism, Agnosticism... (insert your particular ism here...)

And no one can PROVE that God exists any more than we can PROVE he doesn't.

It's all about faith, brother. Just a matter of what flavor yours comes in.

And for the record, there have been plenty of opportunities where I *could* have mentioned how evolution isn't science and DIDN'T. So it's not "every given opportunity". But it's nice to see you noticed when I did.


Happy Monkey  Sunday Nov 14 04:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
I don't think I said evolution is "clearly wrong", but it's certainly NOT provable, and it's certainly not science.
There's a good set of articles on evolution in the new (Nov. 2004) National Geographic, if you're curious.


pdaoust  Sunday Nov 14 07:32 PM

yes, I know; I enjoyed the lovely layout and photos.

oh yeah, there were words there too; I didn't read them ^_^ sometimes I'll get way into a Nat'l Geo article -- but that night I was tired so I just looked at the pictures and read a few captions.

And I'm not ashamed.



OnyxCougar  Monday Nov 15 06:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
There's a good set of articles on evolution in the new (Nov. 2004) National Geographic, if you're curious.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp


xoxoxoBruce  Monday Nov 15 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdaoust
yes, I know; I enjoyed the lovely layout and photos.

oh yeah, there were words there too; I didn't read them ^_^ sometimes I'll get way into a Nat'l Geo article -- but that night I was tired so I just looked at the pictures and read a few captions.

And I'm not ashamed.
I have 56 years of back issues you can read.


Troubleshooter  Monday Nov 15 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I have 56 years of back issues you can read.
The paper ones or the electronic collection?


SHASHOsun  Monday Nov 15 11:28 AM

wowowowowowo



pdaoust  Monday Nov 15 12:50 PM

xoxoxoBruce: with pictures??? oh boy! ^_^



mhartzel  Monday Nov 15 12:50 PM

Just to totally derail the current flamewar...

Got any other pics of the girl in the water????



Uryoces  Monday Nov 15 02:19 PM

I object to the way Nat Geo presented it, essentially as the biggest Troll cover they've ever done, if they've ever done a Troll cover. It says "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" in shit-brown caps. Then if you look inside, there's more than a bit of venom as they basically state "No, dumbshit". If they'd just said something like "Darwin's Legacy" or "The Case for Evolution", that would have been better.



jaguar  Monday Nov 15 04:16 PM

Well frankly, in an age where fundie nutters are pushing their agendas in schools (at least in the US, that particular brand of religious pestilence doesn't seem to have much of a footing this side of the Atlantic) someone needs to stand up and say it loud and clear. The fact it's a question that needs to be asked at all is the real worry.



Happy Monkey  Monday Nov 15 04:49 PM

I thought it was an amusing tweak of the current depressing trend in popular media of covering everything in a "balanced" way. If one side has evidence and the other has only assertions, they are still treated as if it were only a he-said-she-said, and no reporters are willing to actually report what the evidence shows.



Uryoces  Monday Nov 15 04:53 PM

I am one of those nutters, though not fundie. Change over time is inevitable given billions of years, I would never argue that. I'd like to see if it's possible to model how organic compounds suddenly generate self-replicating molecules. The building blocks of life litterally litter every nook and cranny of space, from asteroids, to comets, to recently dicovered free-drifting clouds of organics in deep space. Lipids will even form primitive analogs of cells walls if immersed in water, but I'd like to know how, and in what exact conditions life will arise.

If we've evolved from apes, so be it. It should prove that we are part of this planet and not above it. It should also be natural that we strive to transcend that basic beginning, and seek the divine.

We will always end up with more questions and dichotomies than answers, but we should never stop asking those questions. The price for enlightenment, as well as freedom, is eternal vigilance, and patience.



jaguar  Monday Nov 15 05:10 PM

Quote:
to recently dicovered free-drifting clouds of organics in deep space
huh???

Science is all about finding the theory that fits best and running with that until something better comes along, as it stands there is a wealth of evidence to support evolution and nothing to bring it down. Creationism, intelligent design or whatever other robes it gets dressed up in is nothing more than religious twaddle and has no fit place in scientific discourse, it has no supporting evidence and no basis in science. thus no place anywhere near an educational institution outside a monastery. People can hold whatever religious views they want but when they start trying to stifle science and inflict their superstitions on everyone else I tend to get pretty fucking pissed off. Organised religion has done more damage than any other force in history and done the most to retard the growth of humanity it's death would be a blessing on mankind, that in this day and age it can still threaten science is a sad fact indeed.


Happy Monkey  Monday Nov 15 05:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uryoces
I am one of those nutters, though not fundie.
What do you mean?


jaguar  Monday Nov 15 05:45 PM

Quote:
What do you mean?
I assumed he meant he was rational.


xoxoxoBruce  Monday Nov 15 06:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
The paper ones or the electronic collection?
Paper.


Uryoces  Monday Nov 15 08:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
I assumed he meant he was rational.
Ha, ha! Maybe I'm not, as I'm the one talking about a omnipotent superbeing. Beating someone over the head with the theology stick won't convince anyone of anything. Forcing it on anyone is missing the point. I was raised an Episcopalian, Catholic light -- all the ceremony and half the guilt. That being said, all that I've learned since then, scientifically speaking, can't be ignored. When I was talking about clouds of organic compounds in deep space, that's exactly what I meant. It's been known that ultraviolet rays or electricity passed through a promoridal mix of gasses will spontaneously generate amino acids. There is apparantly a similar proccess with the clouds of interstellar gasses. So many in the scientific community are saying that it seems the universe is designed [for lack of better term] for life. But, it's champagne and caveats at that point, as they don't want to come accross as saying it's 'designed'. Evolution does a pretty good job of explaining how we got here. What I'm interested in is how we get from complex amino acids to self-replicating molecules.


Happy Monkey  Monday Nov 15 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uryoces
What I'm interested in is how we get from complex amino acids to self-replicating molecules.
What I was asking about was what you meant by saying you were one of the nutters. Because the ensuing post was decidedly un-nutterly. Asking those questions is precisely what science is all about. The primary issue is that scientists don't fill gaps in their knowledge with magic. If it is hard to understand how something happens, saying "God did it that way" answers nothing, and is in no way science.
Quote:
But, it's champagne and caveats at that point, as they don't want to come accross as saying it's 'designed'.
That's the thing about self-replication. If it's possible, and the universe is big enough, it WILL happen. Being surprised that conditions appear favorable is a bit like a puddle being surprised that it fits perfectly in the hole it's in, and concluding that the hole was dug with that puddle in mind. That would certainly be possible, but it is in no way necessary or implied.


xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Nov 16 06:57 PM

Ok, so it does happen, we find life some place else. What then? Kill it? Farm it? Eat it? What if it's badder than us? What if it's.....Muslim?



wolf  Thursday Nov 18 01:34 AM

Oh come on. Nobody actually READS National Geographic. You take out the pull out maps, and then head straight for the bare breasted pygmy women photoessay.



Trilby  Thursday Nov 18 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Ok, so it does happen, we find life some place else. What then? Kill it? Farm it? Eat it? What if it's badder than us? What if it's.....Muslim?
I vote eat it. Unless it's got monster parts, then kill it.
Watched NOVA last night. Apparently a true alien won't have a face like the faces we see here on earth (Two eyes, two nostrils and one mouth below) because if it does have a face like ours we must share a common ancestor--it's what the dude on the show said anyway. He seemed pretty sure of himself.


Happy Monkey  Thursday Nov 18 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianna
I vote eat it. Unless it's got monster parts, then kill it.
Watched NOVA last night. Apparently a true alien won't have a face like the faces we see here on earth (Two eyes, two nostrils and one mouth below) because if it does have a face like ours we must share a common ancestor--it's what the dude on the show said anyway. He seemed pretty sure of himself.
Actually, I'd guess that it would be more likely to have a similar face than to be edible. External features are succeptible to convergent evolution (while bats and birds do share an ancestor, it wasn't one that flew) and the basic face is reasonably efficient. It would be unlikely, but not impossible for an alien to have the eyes/nostrils/mouth roughly in that orientation.


BigV  Wednesday Jun 8 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf View Post
Oh come on. Nobody actually READS National Geographic. You take out the pull out maps, and then head straight for the bare breasted pygmy women photoessay.
Hence the vernacular: National Pornographic


Gravdigr  Wednesday Jun 8 04:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave View Post
Sparkie, those people are morons. You will never convince them of it, though. People with that mentality think that we humans are above all other life on Earth, and anything we want to do is OK. Much like some members of the US government!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave View Post
Very good Els, I like that.

You do raise a good question. We know that Bush is human - no animal could be that dumb, but what about Rumsfeld?
Based solely on these two statements, and nothing more, I would like to take this very belated opportunity to invite 'bluesdave' to kiss my hairy American ass.

That is all.


ZenGum  Wednesday Jun 8 08:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
SNIP

That's the thing about self-replication. If it's possible, and the universe is big enough, it WILL happen. Being surprised that conditions appear favorable is a bit like a puddle being surprised that it fits perfectly in the hole it's in, and concluding that the hole was dug with that puddle in mind. That would certainly be possible, but it is in no way necessary or implied.
That is as good an explanation of the anthropocentric principle as I have ever seen. Nicely put, HM.


Happy Monkey  Wednesday Jun 8 08:21 PM

I can't take credit for anything but the phrasing. I believe I first heard the idea from Dawkins.

But thanks!



monster  Wednesday Jun 8 11:54 PM

::wonders why the 6.5-year resurrection::



Spexxvet  Thursday Jun 9 09:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
I can't take credit for anything but the phrasing. I believe I first heard the idea from Dawkins.

But thanks!
Darryl


Or Brian?





infinite monkey  Thursday Jun 9 09:02 AM

omg great minds spexx. I almost posted Darryl 'Dunkin' Dawkins.



Spexxvet  Thursday Jun 9 09:03 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by infinite monkey View Post
omg great minds spexx. I almost posted Darryl 'Dunkin' Dawkins.
He IS a great anthropocentric principlist, you know.


spudcon  Thursday Jun 9 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
SNIP

"That's the thing about self-replication. If it's possible, and the universe is big enough, it WILL happen."

That's a big IF, scientifically speaking. Any evidence of non organic molecules coming to life?



infinite monkey  Thursday Jun 9 09:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
That's a big IF, scientifically speaking. Any evidence of non organic molecules coming to life?
Well, UG posts from time to time.

I'm kidding, I kid.


Pete Zicato  Thursday Jun 9 09:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
Hence the vernacular: National Pornographic
Ah. I see Dr. FrankenV has been raising dead threads.


Pete Zicato  Thursday Jun 9 09:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by infinite monkey View Post
Well, UG posts from time to time.

I'm kidding, I kid.
Made me snort.


monster  Thursday Jun 9 09:57 AM

it's thread rapture!



monster  Thursday Jun 9 09:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Zicato View Post
Made me snort.
I smiled a little.... I have to ration my snorts these days


Spexxvet  Thursday Jun 9 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
Any evidence of non organic molecules coming to life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


Pete Zicato  Thursday Jun 9 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster View Post
I smiled a little.... I have to ration my snorts these days
I know you're a busy gal, but no time for a short snort?


infinite monkey  Thursday Jun 9 10:43 AM

Heed what Pete says. You should take time to stop and snort the roses.



monster  Thursday Jun 9 11:19 AM

Snorting causes coughing causes failure to breathe causes potential dead monster.



infinite monkey  Thursday Jun 9 11:20 AM

Well, then by all means, don't snort!

Do you have water in your lungs from swimming or a bug or what?



Pete Zicato  Thursday Jun 9 11:36 AM

Ok. Too obscure, I guess.

"short snort" = slang for having a drink.



infinite monkey  Thursday Jun 9 11:38 AM

I knew that!

Sincerely,

W.C. Fields



Happy Monkey  Thursday Jun 9 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
SNIP

"That's the thing about self-replication. If it's possible, and the universe is big enough, it WILL happen."

That's a big IF, scientifically speaking. Any evidence of non organic molecules coming to life?
Technically, "organic" roughly means "has carbon", so evidence of non-organic compounds forming life would be even more interesting than organic ones.

Of course, evidence (not proof) of non-life becoming life is that there is life now, and evidence for it becomes simpler and scarcer the further back you look in the geological record, and if you go far enough back, the Earth was in a state where life was probably impossible.

There is also evidence that various components of life can arise naturally, and various steps that are hypothesized as being likely in the formation of life are possible.

And there's also the fact that the leading "competition" to the idea of abiogenesis is "maybe it was magic!"


Gravdigr  Friday Jun 10 03:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster View Post
::wonders why the 6.5-year resurrection::
Why not?


spudcon  Tuesday Jun 14 08:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
Lots of might haves, maybes, hypothoses and theories, still no evidence.


Spexxvet  Tuesday Jun 14 09:36 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
Lots of might haves, maybes, hypothoses and theories, still no evidence.
At least as much as there is for a magical creation.


morethanpretty  Monday Jun 27 09:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
Lots of might haves, maybes, hypothoses and theories, still no evidence.
Oh yeah, where is all of the evidence for your belief that "God did it"?

Its a flat out lazy belief. In times past it was understandable to attribute natural phenomena that humans didn't understand to God/Supernatural because we didn't have widespread education and scientific process. Nowadays though, its inexcusable. If I don't know how a chair is made that doesn't mean I think God made it just because I don't know the answer.


spudcon  Tuesday Jun 28 01:10 AM

The point is that Darwinists claim that they are right and Creationists are wrong because Darwinists are using scientific method. They aren't. Show me a duplicatable experiment that can prove life sprung from primordial goo. The question then becomes which "magic" you have as your religion.



Undertoad  Tuesday Jun 28 09:19 AM

Quote:
Show me a duplicatable experiment that can prove life sprung from primordial goo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment


Happy Monkey  Tuesday Jun 28 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon View Post
The point is that Darwinists claim that they are right and Creationists are wrong because Darwinists are using scientific method. They aren't. Show me a duplicatable experiment that can prove life sprung from primordial goo.
Abiogenesis is a separate proposition from evolution. Evolution has been confirmed repeatedly using the scientific method.

As for abiogenesis, many of the requisite steps have been confirmed using the scientific method (see UT's post). There are steps we haven't confirmed, and there may be steps we will never know. And, even if we do demonstrate a possible path for abiogenesis, we very probably will never know exactly what path actually did happen on Earth. But this is a big part of where the scientific method differs from religion:
Quote:
The question then becomes which "magic" you have as your religion.
No, part of science is to not assume that "I don't know yet" means "it was magic".


morethanpretty  Tuesday Jun 28 06:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey View Post
Abiogenesis is a separate proposition from evolution. Evolution has been confirmed repeatedly using the scientific method.

As for abiogenesis, many of the requisite steps have been confirmed using the scientific method (see UT's post). There are steps we haven't confirmed, and there may be steps we will never know. And, even if we do demonstrate a possible path for abiogenesis, we very probably will never know exactly what path actually did happen on Earth. But this is a big part of where the scientific method differs from religion:
No, part of science is to not assume that "I don't know yet" means "it was magic".
I don't know how clouds form in the sky...it was magic!


spudcon  Wednesday Jun 29 01:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
Still, no evidence. Miller's "Mars jars" only prove that chemistry works. The original chemicals and minerals on earth back then could have formed steel, but there aren't any bicycles evolved from them. A few organic compounds do not make even the simplest life forms.


Undertoad  Wednesday Jun 29 01:56 AM

That's the whole thing: steel would never become life, because it's not a complex enough molecule!

What they've done is show that the basic building blocks of life could form. Not steel (precisely!) but the same components, the amino acids that form proteins, that make up you and I.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Jun 30 12:45 AM

There is no steel in nature. God came to Bessemer in a Sheffield whorehouse, explaining how to mass produce steel, and make England rich.



spudcon  Wednesday Jul 6 08:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad View Post
That's the whole thing: steel would never become life, because it's not a complex enough molecule!

What they've done is show that the basic building blocks of life could form. Not steel (precisely!) but the same components, the amino acids that form proteins, that make up you and I.
I understand, but my analogy with bicycles still stands. Complex or simple elements, just because there was iron, carbon and heat in the prmordial ooze doesn't mean bicycles evolve, any more than amino acids in the ooze means that monkeys and people can evolve from it. As Clara Pella once said, "Where's the beef?"


Spexxvet  Wednesday Jul 6 09:35 AM

I think it's more likely than god making a bicycle out of mud.



Undertoad  Wednesday Jul 6 10:41 AM

Geologists have no direct evidence for mountains, either, because the process of building a mountain is slow and we've never seen it directly. All we can do is examine what happens now, slowly, to try to understand how earth could move and shape over a period of hundreds of thousands of years.

We see earthquakes, we see erosion, we examine the types of rocks and how they are formed. Aha, says the geologist, these rocks could only be formed by volcanic activity; these rocks over here could only be formed by centuries of thousand pounds of pressure. This river erodes silt for centuries. And then there arises an explanation for the mountain and the valley.

And voila, the explanation is proven elsewhere. The scientist looks at western coast of Africa and the eastern coast of South America, and says, hey it sure looks like those two match up perfectly, like jigsaw puzzle pieces, and we notice this in other parts of the world too; what's up with that? Well the explanation for the mountains matches the explanation for the puzzle pieces, and matches everything we see today happening really, really slowly. The independent findings match and now the evidence becomes stronger.

Aha, says Darwin, these birds are almost exactly alike, but the slight differences they have are interesting. What's the explanation? Well, it turns out that all evidence, all explanations of all changes in every living being on the earth match Darwin's idea. The underlying explanation of why you have dark hair if your parents have it is genetics, and the process of genetics matches Darwin precisely. He didn't know a thing about it; but decades after he lived, it confirms everything.

So now the bar is set pretty damn high. In order to explain mountains without bringing in plate tectonics, you're going to have to explain why all the geologic processes we see today happen in some other way. In order to explain why evolution didn't create every single living being on the earth, you're going to have to explain why our DNA contains a blueprint for every living being, how combining our DNA creates near-duplicate beings, how chimp DNA differs from human DNA by a very small percentage (but one that would arise in about 5 million years if genes change at the same slow rate of changes we see in modern life.)



Sundae  Wednesday Jul 6 03:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
There is no steel in nature. God came to Bessemer in a Sheffield whorehouse, explaining how to mass produce steel, and make England rich.
In a pub shurely?
Given that there are more pubs named after him than whorehouses.

Either that, or He made Bessemer immune to the pox in order to facilitate his process - he lived til 85. Not a bad innings, especially in those days.


spudcon  Thursday Jul 7 08:01 AM

But we can measure plate techtonics and mountain building now, slow as it may be. No one has ever seen any molecule, complex or otherwise spring to life. If it can't be duplicated, it ain't science. I'm not claiming Creation as science, and I don't believe evolution of slime into living organisms is science either. Change the definition of scientific method into "I think so," and then you can call it science. Right now, it's not even a theory, it's a hypothesis.



spudcon  Thursday Jul 7 08:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
I think it's more likely than god making a bicycle out of mud.
We can validate muddy people making bicycles today. We can't find any bicycles creating themselves.


Happy Monkey  Thursday Jul 7 12:40 PM

We can observe evolution now, slow as it may be.

We can't duplicate Pangaea, but we can work our way back from current plate tectonics observations, and verify using matching strata and fossils.



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.