Vapid Nyx

We may already know how we will cure death—but should we?

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

'The goal of Andrews and de Grey is not merely to extend life, but to actually reverse the aging process. “Once we are really truly repairing things as fast as they go wrong, game over,” de Grey says in the film. “We will have the ability to live indefinitely.”'

Ahhhh… And this will be the second reason for my death cult needing to exist…

Tell me more about this death cult…

Do you submit to the will of the death cult?

I have my own death cult to deal with, just want to compare notes.

You are an enemy of the death cult.

Are you looking for a war? 

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

I think they might as well just teach it, lets the kids have a think rather than getting stuff dictated to them all the time

Errm, no. Though I agree that the education system dictating shit to kids and not letting them think for themselves is shitty but that isn’t what the whole creationism.evolution debate was about. Creationism has zero evidence to support the claims made and I really think it ruined any kind of critical thinking a child could have by saying (well God did it).Evolution is about looking at the evidence itself, I think it would have been more fun in showing real life evolution of bacteria and microscopic organisms would be a better way to show this then a textbook.

They taught creationism in my school and none of us bought into it.
They also mentioned in passing some sort of alternative theory of evolution where there is some sort of ‘willing’ certain changes, and I headed* an interesting debate with the teacher when I surprised her by questioning her on it. She had to engage with me and convince me. Like I have said many times, I don’t trust dogma, and it is a big worry of mine that science is just as vulnerable to misrepresentations as any other world view.
All the kids in my school openly mocked anything that wasn’t “the obvious truth of science”, but they hadn’t been taught it properly, had just accepted everything they had been told, just like a religious belief, or any belief
I think having debate is much more healthy than dogmatic teachings, whatever form they may come in
*was the only one vaguely interested

I come from a school where Creationism wasn’t taught and it was a hard task getting Muslims on board about Evolution.
So let me revile you with my tale, in University.
Lecture: Evolution 101 (Or whatever)
Me and my friend are sat, me taking notes, and my friend puts her headphones on. The lecturer specifically mentions that the lecture is important as we will be having an exam on the series itself. When I prompt my friend (who is 3 years older than me) about this fact she comes out with “Oh, my mum and dad don’t believe in Evolution, so I don’t.” - Take note that her Mum has never been to school and her Dad didn’t finish his GCSEs. Not that it matters, but the fact remains that I knew her parents knew shit all about Evolution, and here was a 22 year old, sitting with me taking what her parents said as fact and not questioning it.
What I’m trying to say is, there are some smart fuckers out there like you, but there are some dumb shits out there like my friend. Finding the middle ground for that is difficult - and also, School is not the only thing that influences a child, the home does. And fear/apathy/loyalty are powerful factors in what you’ll believe in.
And though after many arguments with my mate where I tried to get her to debate with me, she would end up agreeing with me on some basic stuff, then do a 180 and go back to the beginning again. Why? Because she didn’t care. 

I’m imagining she failed that module, then?
Surely hearing about creationism, and then having it examined by the scientific process, is the best option? That way people are exposed to the ideas for AND against it
I think ideas gradually evolving and dialogue existing is better than banning stuff, as it puts people against each other, shoves religious people in a corner, putting them on the defensive. They’ll just close their minds to what is being said, and there is a huge leap from having no knowledge of evolution and only believing in some holy book, to actively question their faith, so makes any change more unlikely in my mind

There would still be problems I think, you’re asking for the situation to be unbiased - and the fact that the evidence that would be presented would tip to Evolution’s favour would probably prompt conspiracy theories and paranoia even further.
Also, creationism isn’t a science - at all. It doesn’t follow any scientific methodology, if anything it does it all backwards. Which is why it can’t be taught in a science class, maybe in RE? Especially with the aspects of “Who is this creator then?” and “What constitutes as evidence in Creationism?”.
One of the big things regarding Creationism is that it is something Theists have come up with to prove the existence of a god/s. And tries to logically and scientifically explain something with no evidence. Each claim they have made has been refuted, and if Creationism comes into science, then so should Geocentrism as that is in quite a few “holy books” and there seem to be quite a few people who believe in it. Like This and This shows.

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

I think they might as well just teach it, lets the kids have a think rather than getting stuff dictated to them all the time

Errm, no. Though I agree that the education system dictating shit to kids and not letting them think for themselves is shitty but that isn’t what the whole creationism.evolution debate was about. Creationism has zero evidence to support the claims made and I really think it ruined any kind of critical thinking a child could have by saying (well God did it).

Evolution is about looking at the evidence itself, I think it would have been more fun in showing real life evolution of bacteria and microscopic organisms would be a better way to show this then a textbook.

They taught creationism in my school and none of us bought into it.


They also mentioned in passing some sort of alternative theory of evolution where there is some sort of ‘willing’ certain changes, and I headed* an interesting debate with the teacher when I surprised her by questioning her on it. She had to engage with me and convince me. Like I have said many times, I don’t trust dogma, and it is a big worry of mine that science is just as vulnerable to misrepresentations as any other world view.


All the kids in my school openly mocked anything that wasn’t “the obvious truth of science”, but they hadn’t been taught it properly, had just accepted everything they had been told, just like a religious belief, or any belief


I think having debate is much more healthy than dogmatic teachings, whatever form they may come in


*was the only one vaguely interested

I come from a school where Creationism wasn’t taught and it was a hard task getting Muslims on board about Evolution.

So let me revile you with my tale, in University.

Lecture: Evolution 101 (Or whatever)

Me and my friend are sat, me taking notes, and my friend puts her headphones on. The lecturer specifically mentions that the lecture is important as we will be having an exam on the series itself. When I prompt my friend (who is 3 years older than me) about this fact she comes out with “Oh, my mum and dad don’t believe in Evolution, so I don’t.” - Take note that her Mum has never been to school and her Dad didn’t finish his GCSEs. Not that it matters, but the fact remains that I knew her parents knew shit all about Evolution, and here was a 22 year old, sitting with me taking what her parents said as fact and not questioning it.

What I’m trying to say is, there are some smart fuckers out there like you, but there are some dumb shits out there like my friend. Finding the middle ground for that is difficult - and also, School is not the only thing that influences a child, the home does. And fear/apathy/loyalty are powerful factors in what you’ll believe in.

And though after many arguments with my mate where I tried to get her to debate with me, she would end up agreeing with me on some basic stuff, then do a 180 and go back to the beginning again. Why? Because she didn’t care. 

I’m imagining she failed that module, then?

Surely hearing about creationism, and then having it examined by the scientific process, is the best option? That way people are exposed to the ideas for AND against it


I think ideas gradually evolving and dialogue existing is better than banning stuff, as it puts people against each other, shoves religious people in a corner, putting them on the defensive. They’ll just close their minds to what is being said, and there is a huge leap from having no knowledge of evolution and only believing in some holy book, to actively question their faith, so makes any change more unlikely in my mind

There would still be problems I think, you’re asking for the situation to be unbiased - and the fact that the evidence that would be presented would tip to Evolution’s favour would probably prompt conspiracy theories and paranoia even further.

Also, creationism isn’t a science - at all. It doesn’t follow any scientific methodology, if anything it does it all backwards. Which is why it can’t be taught in a science class, maybe in RE? Especially with the aspects of “Who is this creator then?” and “What constitutes as evidence in Creationism?”.

One of the big things regarding Creationism is that it is something Theists have come up with to prove the existence of a god/s. And tries to logically and scientifically explain something with no evidence. Each claim they have made has been refuted, and if Creationism comes into science, then so should Geocentrism as that is in quite a few “holy books” and there seem to be quite a few people who believe in it. Like This and This shows.

Egypt's new hijab-clad superheroine

"We are all exposed to the idea of comics and superheroes. We are exposed to Western media so often. So I guess I was just responding to that in my own way."

I don’t think I’ve ever read a woman’s magazine before, I was more into serial killer mags.

I don’t think I’ve ever read a woman’s magazine before, I was more into serial killer mags.

We may already know how we will cure death—but should we?

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

'The goal of Andrews and de Grey is not merely to extend life, but to actually reverse the aging process. “Once we are really truly repairing things as fast as they go wrong, game over,” de Grey says in the film. “We will have the ability to live indefinitely.”'

Ahhhh… And this will be the second reason for my death cult needing to exist…

Tell me more about this death cult…

Do you submit to the will of the death cult?

I have my own death cult to deal with, just want to compare notes.

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

I think they might as well just teach it, lets the kids have a think rather than getting stuff dictated to them all the time

Errm, no. Though I agree that the education system dictating shit to kids and not letting them think for themselves is shitty but that isn’t what the whole creationism.evolution debate was about. Creationism has zero evidence to support the claims made and I really think it ruined any kind of critical thinking a child could have by saying (well God did it).Evolution is about looking at the evidence itself, I think it would have been more fun in showing real life evolution of bacteria and microscopic organisms would be a better way to show this then a textbook.

They taught creationism in my school and none of us bought into it.
They also mentioned in passing some sort of alternative theory of evolution where there is some sort of ‘willing’ certain changes, and I headed* an interesting debate with the teacher when I surprised her by questioning her on it. She had to engage with me and convince me. Like I have said many times, I don’t trust dogma, and it is a big worry of mine that science is just as vulnerable to misrepresentations as any other world view.
All the kids in my school openly mocked anything that wasn’t “the obvious truth of science”, but they hadn’t been taught it properly, had just accepted everything they had been told, just like a religious belief, or any belief
I think having debate is much more healthy than dogmatic teachings, whatever form they may come in
*was the only one vaguely interested

I come from a school where Creationism wasn’t taught and it was a hard task getting Muslims on board about Evolution.
So let me revile you with my tale, in University.
Lecture: Evolution 101 (Or whatever)
Me and my friend are sat, me taking notes, and my friend puts her headphones on. The lecturer specifically mentions that the lecture is important as we will be having an exam on the series itself. When I prompt my friend (who is 3 years older than me) about this fact she comes out with “Oh, my mum and dad don’t believe in Evolution, so I don’t.” - Take note that her Mum has never been to school and her Dad didn’t finish his GCSEs. Not that it matters, but the fact remains that I knew her parents knew shit all about Evolution, and here was a 22 year old, sitting with me taking what her parents said as fact and not questioning it.
What I’m trying to say is, there are some smart fuckers out there like you, but there are some dumb shits out there like my friend. Finding the middle ground for that is difficult - and also, School is not the only thing that influences a child, the home does. And fear/apathy/loyalty are powerful factors in what you’ll believe in.
And though after many arguments with my mate where I tried to get her to debate with me, she would end up agreeing with me on some basic stuff, then do a 180 and go back to the beginning again. Why? Because she didn’t care. 

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

olympianscomic:

I think they might as well just teach it, lets the kids have a think rather than getting stuff dictated to them all the time

Errm, no. Though I agree that the education system dictating shit to kids and not letting them think for themselves is shitty but that isn’t what the whole creationism.evolution debate was about. Creationism has zero evidence to support the claims made and I really think it ruined any kind of critical thinking a child could have by saying (well God did it).

Evolution is about looking at the evidence itself, I think it would have been more fun in showing real life evolution of bacteria and microscopic organisms would be a better way to show this then a textbook.

They taught creationism in my school and none of us bought into it.


They also mentioned in passing some sort of alternative theory of evolution where there is some sort of ‘willing’ certain changes, and I headed* an interesting debate with the teacher when I surprised her by questioning her on it. She had to engage with me and convince me. Like I have said many times, I don’t trust dogma, and it is a big worry of mine that science is just as vulnerable to misrepresentations as any other world view.


All the kids in my school openly mocked anything that wasn’t “the obvious truth of science”, but they hadn’t been taught it properly, had just accepted everything they had been told, just like a religious belief, or any belief


I think having debate is much more healthy than dogmatic teachings, whatever form they may come in


*was the only one vaguely interested

I come from a school where Creationism wasn’t taught and it was a hard task getting Muslims on board about Evolution.

So let me revile you with my tale, in University.

Lecture: Evolution 101 (Or whatever)

Me and my friend are sat, me taking notes, and my friend puts her headphones on. The lecturer specifically mentions that the lecture is important as we will be having an exam on the series itself. When I prompt my friend (who is 3 years older than me) about this fact she comes out with “Oh, my mum and dad don’t believe in Evolution, so I don’t.” - Take note that her Mum has never been to school and her Dad didn’t finish his GCSEs. Not that it matters, but the fact remains that I knew her parents knew shit all about Evolution, and here was a 22 year old, sitting with me taking what her parents said as fact and not questioning it.

What I’m trying to say is, there are some smart fuckers out there like you, but there are some dumb shits out there like my friend. Finding the middle ground for that is difficult - and also, School is not the only thing that influences a child, the home does. And fear/apathy/loyalty are powerful factors in what you’ll believe in.

And though after many arguments with my mate where I tried to get her to debate with me, she would end up agreeing with me on some basic stuff, then do a 180 and go back to the beginning again. Why? Because she didn’t care. 

jumpingjacktrash:

hextrudedcubes:

heytheretylerr:

WHAT KIND OF WIZARD FISH IS THIS

It’s a transparent cardinalfish (probably Apogon crassiceps) swallowing an ostracod. When threatened, this type of ostracod release a burst of biolumiscent chemicals to dazzle predators and/or attract their predator’s predators. The transparent cardinalfish is (for obvious reasons) particularly susceptible to this last bit, and so has evolved to spit out this type of ostracod whenever they detect the chemical. There’s a video at the post’s source!

so cool, thank you!
edit: here’s the link, since tumblr makes it hard to find source
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024m0s1

jumpingjacktrash:

hextrudedcubes:

heytheretylerr:

WHAT KIND OF WIZARD FISH IS THIS

It’s a transparent cardinalfish (probably Apogon crassiceps) swallowing an ostracod. When threatened, this type of ostracod release a burst of biolumiscent chemicals to dazzle predators and/or attract their predator’s predators. The transparent cardinalfish is (for obvious reasons) particularly susceptible to this last bit, and so has evolved to spit out this type of ostracod whenever they detect the chemical. There’s a video at the post’s source!

so cool, thank you!

edit: here’s the link, since tumblr makes it hard to find source

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p024m0s1

(via awkwardscotty)

We may already know how we will cure death—but should we?

olympianscomic:

losttomyownself:

'The goal of Andrews and de Grey is not merely to extend life, but to actually reverse the aging process. “Once we are really truly repairing things as fast as they go wrong, game over,” de Grey says in the film. “We will have the ability to live indefinitely.”'

Ahhhh… And this will be the second reason for my death cult needing to exist…

Tell me more about this death cult…

olympianscomic:

I think they might as well just teach it, lets the kids have a think rather than getting stuff dictated to them all the time

Errm, no. Though I agree that the education system dictating shit to kids and not letting them think for themselves is shitty but that isn’t what the whole creationism.evolution debate was about. Creationism has zero evidence to support the claims made and I really think it ruined any kind of critical thinking a child could have by saying (well God did it).Evolution is about looking at the evidence itself, I think it would have been more fun in showing real life evolution of bacteria and microscopic organisms would be a better way to show this then a textbook.

olympianscomic:

I think they might as well just teach it, lets the kids have a think rather than getting stuff dictated to them all the time

Errm, no. Though I agree that the education system dictating shit to kids and not letting them think for themselves is shitty but that isn’t what the whole creationism.evolution debate was about. Creationism has zero evidence to support the claims made and I really think it ruined any kind of critical thinking a child could have by saying (well God did it).

Evolution is about looking at the evidence itself, I think it would have been more fun in showing real life evolution of bacteria and microscopic organisms would be a better way to show this then a textbook.

olympianscomic:

In Lord of the Flies aren’t they gonna eat Piggy?
All us pudgy Westerners are gonna get what’s coming to us when society collapses.

olympianscomic:

In Lord of the Flies aren’t they gonna eat Piggy?

All us pudgy Westerners are gonna get what’s coming to us when society collapses.

These findings, while from a small sample size, illustrate a well-documented phenomenon for working women: The Double Bind. The double bind is the idea that if a women is too “nice” at work or uses stereotypically feminine vocal characteristics she’ll be seen as too soft and won’t be taken seriously. On the flip side, if a woman is too assertive she’s seen as brusque and bitchy.

The One Word Men Never See In Their Performance Reviews

"Not only did women receive more criticism in their performance reviews, it was less constructive and more personal. For example, the critical feedback men received was mostly geared toward suggestions to develop additional skills:

“There were a few cases where it would have been extremely helpful if you had gone deeper into the details to help move an area forward.”

Women received similar constructive feedback, but they also included the personality criticism such as “watch your tone” and “stop being so judgmental.” For example:

“You can come across as abrasive sometimes. I know you don’t mean to, but you need to pay attention to your tone.”

Abrasive alone was used 17 times to describe 13 different women, but the word never appeared in men’s reviews. In fact, this type of character critique that was absent from men’s reviews showed up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.”

Science has not identified the healthiest way to eat. In fact, it has come as close as possible (because you can’t prove a negative) to confirming that there is no such thing as the healthiest diet. To the contrary, science has established quite definitively that humans are able to thrive equally well on a variety of diets. Adaptability is the hallmark of man as eater. For us, many diets are good while none is perfect.

—Michael Shermer