I don't see how it would be possible for a quantum fluctuation to create the universe it is a part of, but maybe I just don't understand the theory and principles involved. Wouldn't we have to verify that our mathematics work and quantum fluctuations exist outside our own universe before a proof like this would be valid?

It always saddens me when I encounter the religion vs. science debate because I don't think there should be any disagreement between the two. Both science and religion are studies of reality; though the approaches are radically different. I'm not familiar with the creation accounts of other religions, but I think the overall progression of creation described in the Bible fits current scientific understanding of planetary and ecological development quite well (though I'm no expert in either field). God used the natural laws that He created to form the universe that we see. I think the belief held by many biblical creationists that the universe was formed in six literal days is a misinterpretation of the biblical text. Days are often used in the Bible (and in modern colloquial English) to represent time periods or eras. I also think that the theory of macro evolution arose and is perpetuated by serious misinterpretation of observed data. Maybe my understanding of the theory is flawed, but wouldn't a good test of the theory be whether or not we find evidence of countless transitional species representing the ancestry of all the species that we see today? Have we found those and I'm just unaware of it? By the way, for anyone who is more interested in learning how science and the Bible agree than in mud-slinging, this website offers a lot of good information: http://www.reasons.org/

Many things seem contradictory until we understand them better. Light behaves like both a particle and a wave. I wouldn't expect the creator to be any less complex and intriguing than the things He created. How much of the Bible have you read? There are many parts that I don't understand and many that I dislike, but if you read it as a whole, it's a good way to get to know God. The New Testament especially yields a good portrait of his character. Studying nature is another good way to learn about its creator, and it never ceases to amaze me.

This is one topic where the biblical perspective makes a lot of sense. Since we were designed by a loving creator, it makes sense that we have a built-in reluctance to harm each other. Unfortunately, since we chose to do things our way instead of following his original design, our sinful nature all too often overrides his original programming like a computer virus. Fortunately, our creator offers a way to overcome this - sort of like a software update - through Jesus. Incidentally, here's an article discussing the results of another study of the physical-moral connection from a biblical perspective: http://www.reasons.org/articles/does-human-morality-arise-from-brain-chemistry That site also has a lot of other articles discussing scientific topics from a biblical perspective (and the Bible from a scientific perspective) that may interest my fellow slashdotters.

64 years is a pretty long time for the general public to wait (if they ever even cared), but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with information control. I don't know about the other scrolls, but many ancient manuscripts, both original Hebrew as well as Greek translations, of the book of Isaiah have been available for study since long before the Dead Sea manuscript was found. The DSS only corroborated the manuscripts found earlier. Actually, the fact that there are so many manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts that agree so closely with one another does two things: it helps to validate the accuracy of the completed text, and it effectively eliminates the possibility of any one party controlling the information content of the manuscripts. For those interested, this Wikipedia article has a nice summary of some of the manuscripts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

Yeah, what bknabe said: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics10.asp. Score another one for adult stem cells.

Maybe Blizzard will take this extra time to reevaluate releasing a purposely crippled game for their loyal fans and decide enable LAN gaming. Maybe they'll even decide to let players use all the races they pay for instead of instead of selling them one game for the price of three. Any more miracles to wish for while we're at it?

This makes me angry. I've been looking forward to this game for YEARS, but i now have 2 big reasons to avoid it: no LAN support and 1 game for the price of 3. It seems to me that Blizzard has become too greedy for their own good. Maybe WoW has made them so much money that they think any project has to have similar returns to be of value. Blizzard has historically done well because they've made excellent games, but it looks to me like they're shooting themselves in the foot this time.

I can think of so many better things to spend $400,000 dollars of my tax money on during an economic crisis.

I always thought critical thinking was a good thing. Blindly accepting what you're told isn't something we want to teach in school. Isn't that what religious people are often criticized for?

It may have to do with a person's belief regarding the value of life. If a person believes that human life has value and purpose given by its creator, that person might fight harder to preserve life than someone who believes that life is the result of random chance and has no inherent value or purpose.

I don't think anyone could label these cells "embryonic" because they were made to resemble embryonic cells. They didn't come from mouse embryos; they came from adult skin cells. That being said, I don't know why anyone would have ethical objections to adapting this technique to human cells. I am firmly opposed to any operation that harms humans at any stage of development, but since no adult person would be seriously harmed by the harvesting of their skin cells, I say this looks like a useful advance in science.