Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Science defines god.

---

At 7/10/08 12:30 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

We'll assume that they make the claim and everyone believes it without anyone testing the premise. Let's even go there. You're forgetting that science is based on constantly being checked and rechecked.

I'm talking about the initial reaction.

Remember the headlines?

"Scientists are hoping..."

"Intelligence life could've..."

That will be the initial starting point.

Also, your point wasn't to explain how the scientific community would react. You were using it as an example to show a perceived double-standard.

Because there is, and i'll show it below using what's happening this very moment.

And again, it's entirely the point. You ALSO made the claim that scientists not believing in God wasn't discovery and lauded that as being against science. My counterpoint was that you can't discover something that's unobservable. That's just a stupid comment to make.

And here it is.

You say you can not observe what is un-observable. But we actually do not know if "God/Deity" can or can not be observed, except that at this very moment, we have nothing to observe 'it/him' by.

Which is fine.

Which is why I brought up what Scientists are doing now. Which is spending tons of money in an attempt to find what we can not yet observe, which is: Life Forms on a Foreign planet.

We have no evidence of life on any other planet. Yet we continue to pour billions into finding life on any other planet in hopes of actually finding that life which, at current time, is 'un-observable'.

So as I was saying. I don't see a seperate account in which money is being poured into in an attempt to find "God/Deity" somewhere out there in the Universe. We have no evidence of it, just like the other life forms, but there's still a possibility (just like those life forms).

But quite honestly. Having two identical circumstances and coming to a different personal conclusion? Hypocrites.

That there are actually scientists out there who do not believe in a God because there is no evidence for such a being, while simutaneously believing that there are other life forms in the Universe despite there being no evidence.

How honest. How trustworthy.

You can't exactly say that's the only point you were making when you're in print saying that you were using that as an analogy to illustrate a further point and, in the process, making separate points, as well. Well, you can't do that and look credible at the same time, if that's the sort of thing that's important to you.

Sure I can. Because you've been arguing with so-called "Scientists" during this entire conversation.

---

At 7/10/08 12:41 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/10/08 12:30 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

I'm talking about the initial reaction.

And you said that's all you were talking about "nothing more, nothing less." That's not the case.

You say you can not observe what is un-observable. But we actually do not know if "God/Deity" can or can not be observed, except that at this very moment, we have nothing to observe 'it/him' by.

Which is fine.

Which is why I brought up what Scientists are doing now. Which is spending tons of money in an attempt to find what we can not yet observe, which is: Life Forms on a Foreign planet.

We have no evidence of life on any other planet. Yet we continue to pour billions into finding life on any other planet in hopes of actually finding that life which, at current time, is 'un-observable'.

So as I was saying. I don't see a seperate account in which money is being poured into in an attempt to find "God/Deity" somewhere out there in the Universe. We have no evidence of it, just like the other life forms, but there's still a possibility (just like those life forms).

But quite honestly. Having two identical circumstances and coming to a different personal conclusion? Hypocrites.

So we're supposed to pour millions of dollars into a project to find an omniscient/omnipotent/invisible being that doesn't want to be found? How is that responsible?

How is that even comparable to finding life forms on other planets? "Observable" doesn't mean we're just not pointing the telescope in the right place. If life forms exist on other planets, they are observable or leave behind evidence that we can measure. That's what we are looking for and we know where to look for it. Since it would be easiest for us to find life similar to organism we know on earth, we search for planets that have similar conditions. Believe it or not, that's what we like to call, a "starting place." It's something you need to have before you ask the government for millions of dollars and the valuable time of brilliant minds.

How, exactly, do you propose we find God? Maybe we should get some equipment that measures the gleam in a child's eye on Christmas morning or some instrument to calculate the potency and loudness of unicorn farts. Maybe that's where God is.

That there are actually scientists out there who do not believe in a God because there is no evidence for such a being, while simutaneously believing that there are other life forms in the Universe despite there being no evidence.

How honest. How trustworthy.

I'm pretty sure there are accountants who cook their books, too. There might even be a fast food employee or two that spit in the food. I also have the nagging suspicion that some of our politicians aren't quite telling us the truth the whole time.

How earth-shattering that some people don't do their jobs like they're supposed to. It's like... it's like humans are fallible or something. Or that some people simply aren't on the up and up. This wouldn't happen in a theocracy, boy howdy. God wouldn't allow it.

Sure I can. Because you've been arguing with so-called "Scientists" during this entire conversation.

And I'm agreeing with scientists, too. What's your point?

---

At 7/10/08 01:06 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

And you said that's all you were talking about "nothing more, nothing less." That's not the case.

It's not my fault you're reading too much into my posts.

I'm giving you their line of thinking when a situation presents itself. That suddenly, the whole "Brick" analogy is more feasible than was before, to them.

So we're supposed to pour millions of dollars into a project to find an omniscient/omnipotent/invisible being that doesn't want to be found? How is that responsible?

Who says it's invisible?

What? You thought I was talking about a soley religious Christian - like God? Why do you think I added "Deity" and "Force" with it?

I'm not speaking in a religious sense.

How is that even comparable to finding life forms on other planets? "Observable" doesn't mean we're just not pointing the telescope in the right place. If life forms exist on other planets, they are observable or leave behind evidence that we can measure. That's what we are looking for and we know where to look for it.

Really? You know where to look for it?

Ok, point to them. Where are they? Have we any proof of their existance? Have we found life on any other planet, no matter how underdeveloped, not matter how similar that planet's conditions?

No?

Thought so.

Since it would be easiest for us to find life similar to organism we know on earth, we search for planets that have similar conditions.

And we've come to... what conclusion so far?

Oh, right. Nothing.

Astonishing.

Believe it or not, that's what we like to call, a "starting place." It's something you need to have before you ask the government for millions of dollars and the valuable time of brilliant minds.

Brilliant? That's laughable considering.

How, exactly, do you propose we find God? Maybe we should get some equipment that measures the gleam in a child's eye on Christmas morning or some instrument to calculate the potency and loudness of unicorn farts. Maybe that's where God is.

Wow, I didn't think you were this much of an idiot.

I make mention of how I hate religion in politics. How I never want to bring it up. And even when I add "Deity/Force" next to "God", you still assume i'm talking about a religious/invisible Christian-like supernatural being.

How cute.

And I'm agreeing with scientists, too. What's your point?

lol, that's such a lie. You've been in direct opposition to them and their would-be reaction. How can you possibly agree?

Oh, right. You think i'm talking about a religious deity.

I do love this thread!

---

At 7/10/08 12:41 AM, Memorize wrote: That there are actually scientists out there who do not believe in a God because there is no evidence for such a being, while simutaneously believing that there are other life forms in the Universe despite there being no evidence.

How honest. How trustworthy.

There's one rather important thing you're ignoring here:

We have a working model of bigenesis. We know it CAN happen (cuz, well... it did). We know (basically) how it happens. We know that planets can have the right conditions for it to happen. We also know that among the <sagan> billions and billions </sagan> of planets out there, that those conditions are likely to exist.

We have no such thing with God.

---

I'm on edge, alright?

I can't even find the words to amount to the annoyance of people constantly thinking that i'm always talking in some sort of religious manner.

Several damn times I have said I HATE/ABHOR/DESPISE religion in politics, including this very poltical forum.

Why do people still think I'm speaking religiously or Pro-ID? Why? I don't friggin' get it.

I mean, take PoxPower. I slammed some of religion a while back, i'm suddenly a confused deist. I create a situation like this to point out people's inconsistancies, and all of a sudden i'm a Pro-ID, religious creationist with an agenda to push.

Allow me to make it perfectly clear.

I don't want ID in school.
I HATE religion in politics.
I DESPISE even bringing up religion at all in these threads.

There? K? Cool?

Yes.

On to my music.

---

At 7/10/08 01:20 AM, Ravariel wrote:

There's one rather important thing you're ignoring here:

Nope, not ignoring it.

Why?

Because even under our proposed hypothesis of earth's previous condition, the survivability rating would've been 0.

We know is CAN happen?

Well ok. I propose we know that a deity CAN happen, therefore, we should look for it.

Fun.

---

At 7/10/08 01:25 AM, Memorize wrote:

Because even under our proposed hypothesis of earth's previous condition, the survivability rating would've been 0.

Oh, I'm sorry. Allow me to be more... clear.

It would've been so unlikely that you would have a better chance of getting a severely drunk gambler not to take notice of a casino as he walked by.

How's that?

---

At 7/10/08 01:25 AM, Memorize wrote: Well ok. I propose we know that a deity CAN happen, therefore, we should look for it.

Um, we don't though?

---

You've pretty much proven my point, Memorize. No, I don't assume you're talking about the Judeochristian God. I'm making a point that it could be literally anything really puts a kink in things, doesn't it. As I've said before. How do you know God's not a rabbit that only manifests its powers when nobody's looking? Claiming the Judeochristian God in this sense is a nice reference point because you know what I'm talking about. What if He is real? How would you test for that? What if God's that rabbit? How would you test for it? What if He's a force that mimics some natural phenomenon we've already discovered? Is that something we can track? Good gravy, maybe God only created the universe and then... dare I say it, died!!! How would we even find the body to have a proper burial?

There are too many variables. In the mathematical sense, it's an unsolvable problem.

And, you're right, we haven't found any sign of life on other planets yet. But we still have more of a clue of what we're looking for than when it comes to some completely unknown force/being/thing. We know what life is, at least according to our standards, when we see it. Even if we managed to stumble upon God in some form. How the hell would we know we had?

Also, since when do you speak for all scientists to know that a great many of them wouldn't be instantly skeptical and secondly, what difference does it make what their reaction would be anyway? I shot that argument down cold. Even if a scientist were to say "well, hey, what made this," which I agreed some would (I simply said that SCIENCE as a body does not condone making a theory off of that), then it still makes a poor analogy.

Again: Humans have prior knowledge of how structures come to be, we build them. The human mind is geared to take prior knowledge and apply it to what's put in front of it. If somebody were to give me a bowl of cereal in a white fluid that was slightly more viscous than water, I would assume it's milk. Of course, by drinking it, I would test that theory and would be well on my way to determining if it was, in fact milk. If it did not, in fact taste like milk, I would say "well, hey, I guess this isn't milk." My initial hypothesis does not change the fact.

However, it's a ridiculous idea to automatically look at the universe and make the claim that it had to have been created. Why does it have to have been created? Do you have any previous knowledge of the construction of universae to know that they are typically made by something? What science is doing is wondering how it formed.

It's a similar principle to that misguided analogy you made. When you turn it completely around, it actually makes sense. If, say, we found structures on another planet, the first thing we would do is to found out what caused them. We would not say aliens made them and call it a day. That's a bullshit assumption. Even if the research team believed aliens made them, they would still investigate how they were built. This would lead to two conclusions: 1) they were caused by natural phenomena and there's no way to tell from that data that life is on that planet or 2) they were constructed by some life form, meaning that there is life in outer space.

That's what you call a first step. By looking into how the universe formed we are being WAY more productive than going on a wild goose chase to search for God, exclusively. If, in fact, God did create the universe, then studying how it formed should lead us to that conclusion.

---

At 7/10/08 01:25 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/10/08 01:20 AM, Ravariel wrote:

There's one rather important thing you're ignoring here:

Nope, not ignoring it.

Why?

Because even under our proposed hypothesis of earth's previous condition, the survivability rating would've been 0.

Well, now you're just making shit up, cuz that's not at all true.

We know is CAN happen?

Well ok. I propose we know that a deity CAN happen, therefore, we should look for it.

Just because you propose we know a god can happen, doesn't make it true. We have no working model for god, we have no evidence that any other god existed, therefore we cannot apply the same line of reasoning as we do to the search for extraterrestrial life.

Sounds to me like you're just playing shit-stirrer now, and trying to have some fun with the newbies.

---

At 7/10/08 12:12 AM, Memorize wrote: If we found something like a palace or skycraper or any other building-like structure on a foreign planet, what will the headlines of the major media outlets say, and what will the Scientists be banking on?

As I mentioned earlier, this is because complexity and artificiality are two different things.

---

At 7/10/08 12:12 AM, Memorize wrote:

If we found something like a palace or skycraper or any other building-like structure on a foreign planet, what will the headlines of the major media outlets say, and what will the Scientists be banking on?

What's this idiot point supposed to prove?
That we're smart enough to know buildings aren't natural occurrences?

---

At 7/10/08 01:30 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 7/10/08 01:25 AM, Memorize wrote: Well ok. I propose we know that a deity CAN happen, therefore, we should look for it.

Um, we don't though?

Ah, I mean as in, we don't know that a deity can happen.
Not the second part.

---

At 7/10/08 12:12 AM, Memorize wrote: It's not MY fault that it's how the scientists and world would react, now is it?

And exactly how do you know how Scientists would react? That's a very bold claim.

If we found something like a palace or skycraper or any other building-like structure on a foreign planet, what will the headlines of the major media outlets say, and what will the Scientists be banking on?

For starters you're comparing forign life to supernatural life. It's still a falacious analogy.

Secondly you're talking about THE MEDIA and not the scientists themselves. I've been in the newpaper 3 times and had an interview taken and in NONE of those times did they actually print what I said.

Also like I've said you're making assertions that Scientists discredit the existience of God.

look here and realize that the majority of those Scientists are believers.

Science is purly an Agnostic practice of discovering knowledge. Meaning Science will not make a conclusion on till the evidence says otherwise.

Now I can assert there is no God based on a LACK of evidence just as there is a lack of evidence for Unicorns but that does not remove the possibility.

I mean, after all, it's not my fault these same people are spending billions of dollars to find any underdeveloped lifeform on another planet when we have absolutely no evidence of proof whatsoever of any other forms of life even existing.

*kiss kiss*

Addionally, I would like to add that space exploration and research DOES NOT automatically mean searching for alien life.

---

At 7/10/08 03:47 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Well, now you're just making shit up, cuz that's not at all true.

Really?

You're telling me that the survivability of any organism wouldn't be slim?

Just because you propose we know a god can happen, doesn't make it true. We have no working model for god, we have no evidence that any other god existed, therefore we cannot apply the same line of reasoning as we do to the search for extraterrestrial life.

You're completely missing the point.

tsk tsk.

We shouldn't be spending our time looking for other forms of life when all the supposed evidence we have is "us", especially when our own existance is slim to none. We shouldn't be rushing to find it. And we shouldn't be suprised when or if we find it.

If there are other forms of life, then we will find them eventually. No need to push it as much as we do, especially when the odds of finding it are very very slim.

I'm talking about the immediate reaction of the people. As soon as they would see something like what I proposed, they and the headlines would all be estastic, before they would even be able to test for anything.

Sounds to me like you're just playing shit-stirrer now, and trying to have some fun with the newbies.

Quiet down, sonny jim

At 7/10/08 07:25 AM, Elfer wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, this is because complexity and artificiality are two different things.

Yeah...

*shrugs*

At 7/10/08 07:47 AM, poxpower wrote:

What's this idiot point supposed to prove?
That we're smart enough to know buildings aren't natural occurrences?

Damn Poxy.

What astounding detective skills. Nothing gets passed you.

At 7/10/08 09:32 AM, Brick-top wrote:

And exactly how do you know how Scientists would react? That's a very bold claim.

You tell me.

Considering their fascination of finding life on other planets. Not to mention all of those discovery channel specials dealing with it.

For starters you're comparing forign life to supernatural life. It's still a falacious analogy.

That super-natural life could be nothing more than more advanced life.

Secondly you're talking about THE MEDIA and not the scientists themselves. I've been in the newpaper 3 times and had an interview taken and in NONE of those times did they actually print what I said.

The Media isn't going to print about the big news of Intelligent Life discovery?

K.

Also like I've said you're making assertions that Scientists discredit the existience of God.

Nope.

I said that it was a personal hypocrites choice. Not a representation of the scientific community.

I'm saying it's a double standard to say, looking at one thing, that "Aliens could've done this" as an initial reaction, but that same doesn't hold true with the Universe in general.

look here and realize that the majority of those Scientists are believers.

That's nice.

I mean. It just... opened my eyes!

Science is purly an Agnostic practice of discovering knowledge. Meaning Science will not make a conclusion on till the evidence says otherwise.

It sure isn't treated like one by special interest groups.

Now I can assert there is no God based on a LACK of evidence just as there is a lack of evidence for Unicorns but that does not remove the possibility.

And I assert that there is no other life due to lack of evidence and how unlikely there would be any, anyway.

Fun.

*kiss kiss*

And a big fat slobbering kiss right back at ya.

Addionally, I would like to add that space exploration and research DOES NOT automatically mean searching for alien life.

Didn't say it was.

---

At 7/10/08 10:31 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/10/08 07:25 AM, Elfer wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, this is because complexity and artificiality are two different things.

Yeah...

*shrugs*

Yeah uhh, considering the argument you were making, it's a pretty crucial distinction.

---

At 7/9/08 11:55 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Infinite environments implies infinite organisms though.

i meant if something evolves beyond the influence from the environment (all environments).

---

Memorize, the initial reaction to the Universe WAS that it must have been designed be someone or something. From stone age shamans to Greek philosophers and 18th century scientists, the initial hypothesis had always been that the Universe and life had been designed. However, science has advanced since then.

Thanks to people like Darwin, Einstein, Hawking and numerous others, the hypothesis of a designer has become, if not invalid, at least unnecessary. We now know that even seemingly complex things can have natural explanations. And natural explanations, once discovered, have always been the simplest ones and easiest to understand. But you cannot say that science never considered the possibility of a designer, when the designer hypothesis used to dominate nearly throughout the entire history of science, until recently.

---

The fact of the matter is life in all forms is amazingly incomprehensibly unique and marvelous. And now matter how much we like to think we know where still so ignorant as a species. Were also afraid of unknown and there is no bigger unknown than death. There is no possible way to tell if there is some kind of God or not and it scares us. The whole concept of God would be amazing an all knowing being that would watch over us and guide us and then when we die depending on how we lived we would either be punished or rewarded. If we could have stone cold proof of that then the World would be a better place.

So until that moment comes it's just a guessing game.

---

At 7/10/08 11:17 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

Thanks to people like Darwin, Einstein, Hawking and numerous others, the hypothesis of a designer has become, if not invalid, at least unnecessary. We now know that even seemingly complex things can have natural explanations. And natural explanations, once discovered, have always been the simplest ones and easiest to understand. But you cannot say that science never considered the possibility of a designer, when the designer hypothesis used to dominate nearly throughout the entire history of science, until recently.

The more we find and understand. The most we discover and the more complex the world is shown to be. We come to the opposite conclusion. The more illogical conclusion.

So pathetic.

---

At 7/10/08 02:13 PM, Memorize wrote: The more we find and understand. The most we discover and the more complex the world is shown to be. We come to the opposite conclusion. The more illogical conclusion.

So pathetic.

Complexity is not an indicator of design.

If you were trying to design a system, would you opt for the most complex, convoluted, inefficient design possible, or a simple, elegant one?

I can think of a lot of design problems with humans that wouldn't make sense if there was someone intelligent behind it all.

---

At 7/10/08 02:22 PM, Elfer wrote:

Complexity is not an indicator of design.

Which isn't the point.

The point was that: The more we see and becomes known to us on how much it takes for these things to operate, the opposite conclusion is drawn.

If you were trying to design a system, would you opt for the most complex, convoluted, inefficient design possible, or a simple, elegant one?

I wonder.

You know just as well as I do, that it can be used as a matter of opinion in order to give yourself some leverage.

That's all it is.

A normal logical reaction to the Universe has obviously favored me, all through out history and to this very day. You just come up with this "inefficient" excuse to dismiss what is obvious.

As I said before: Typical Human Behavior.

I can think of a lot of design problems with humans that wouldn't make sense if there was someone intelligent behind it all.

Weigh it.

Weigh those flaws with successes.

Kind of funny.

---

At 7/10/08 02:22 PM, Elfer wrote: If you were trying to design a system, would you opt for the most complex, convoluted, inefficient design possible, or a simple, elegant one?

I can think of a lot of design problems with humans that wouldn't make sense if there was someone intelligent behind it all.

The surest sign of genius is simplicity. The best engineers and architects are the ones who can create the simplest possible design, that's where the real trick is. The fact that we, and other creatures, have vestigial organs that serve no logical purpose speaks against a competent designer rather than for. I'll agree, the jury is out as to whether or not our development was guided by some outside force with an intent because, as of yet, it's impossible to determine and there's no way of following up on that outside of finding out how we formed. However, the idea of that force having superior craftsmanship is ludicrous. Even though we can't create something on par with ourselves has no bearing on the fact that our makeup is still needlessly complicated.

---

At 7/10/08 02:44 PM, Memorize wrote: Weigh it.

Weigh those flaws with successes.

Kind of funny.

The problem with this argument is that a natural system will weed out failures by itself and propagate successes, leaving only successes (note that the same is not true of an artificial system). What separates this from a designed solution is that the end product is simply "good enough," but lacks obvious improvements that don't have a reason to occur spontaneously.

For example: One thumb on each hand is enough to give humans a significant advantage over competing species. However, if one was to design a hand from the ground up, it would be prudent to put a thumb on both sides of the hand, as well as the ability to curl fingers and grip in either direction.

Instead, what we have is something that was sloppily adapted from earlier technology, complete with near-useless vestiges of claws.

---

At 7/10/08 10:31 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/10/08 09:32 AM, Brick-top wrote:

And exactly how do you know how Scientists would react? That's a very bold claim.

You tell me.

No, you're the one who's making the claim. You tell me.

Considering their fascination of finding life on other planets. Not to mention all of those discovery channel specials dealing with it.

So wait, a TV channel talks about alien life and suddenly it's an obsession amonst the scientific community?

Wow I'm sure that little series with Sam Neil shows just how desperatly they're trying to find life.....

But the animations were really cool.

For starters you're comparing forign life to supernatural life. It's still a falacious analogy.

That super-natural life could be nothing more than more advanced life.

Of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

Stop trying to change the definition YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS!

Secondly you're talking about THE MEDIA and not the scientists themselves. I've been in the newpaper 3 times and had an interview taken and in NONE of those times did they actually print what I said.

The Media isn't going to print about the big news of Intelligent Life discovery?

K.

And this means what? Scientists don't have anything to do with the media.

I said that it was a personal hypocrites choice. Not a representation of the scientific community.

I'm saying it's a double standard to say, looking at one thing, that "Aliens could've done this" as an initial reaction, but that same doesn't hold true with the Universe in general.

So you're saying that the universe could have been created by Aliens? That's a possibility. Like I've said we don't know what caused the Big bang so it's not to be excluded yet are you going to see an alien civilisation and say "Hey those dudes made the universe!"

No, of course not because you don't make assumptions in Science. You make a hypothesis and it holds no scientific bearing till Evidence is discovered.

And I assert that there is no other life due to lack of evidence and how unlikely there would be any, anyway.

Are you insinuating that there never will be evidence for alien life? That's just as stupid as saying there will be evidence for it.

God and Aliens for me is the same. I dont believe in either however my optimism for Alien life is greater because we've been shown life can begin by itself and God is supernatural.

You've distorted the barrier between forign life to Religious life.

---

What is natural to us?

Stuff not human?

WOW THAT'S A FUCK LOAD OF CONTRASTING DATA THERE.

---

memorize, I'll only say this:

Don't you find it strange that all of the scientists on earth seem to majorly disagree with your view of the world? Seeing as science doesn't have any sort of political allegiance or any interest in following trends?

Ever wonder why somehow only morons seem to be creationists? Only people that upon further scrutiny turn out to be underhanded people who no science education and a poor understanding of the subjects they vehemently oppose?

100% of every biologist believes in evolution.
Seriously, 100%.

How can you be so impossibly bold as to suggest they've somehow been so idiotic that they've all missed out on YOUR conclusion, when YOU yourself have no background in the field you're challenging?

It's ridiculous. It's like me calling out chess masters about the best strategies. Mornonic.

---

it's the matrix argument poxpower

it's the 1% to your 99% surities, if you think like that.

If you don't I feel sorry for you.

---

At 7/11/08 03:18 AM, poxpower wrote: 100% of every biologist believes in evolution.
Seriously, 100%.

Not quite 100%, unless you round up.

Why, the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism managed to collect the signatures of 80 people who have titles somewhat relevant to evolution in a mere six-year period. Not only that, but it's managed around 700 signatures in total, according to the Institute.

Of course, we should ignore that a similar petition from scientists in support of evolution managed to get 7733 signatures in four days, including 3385 biologists.

We should also ignore Project Steve, which is constantly outstripping Dissent, despite only being signed by scientists named Steve.