What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
97 Comments
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -4/+44http://i43.tinypic.com/fb03ld.png
I found this amusing.
What I don't find amusing is that this list is even needed. We've come a long way in the last few hundred years, but apparently we haven't come far enough. - Hetman, on 05/18/2009, -5/+42It does not matter. They do not disagree with evolution because of the lack of evidence. They disagree with evolution because it goes against there religious faith. Most of these people value faith over evidence.
Mark 9: 38-50
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where "`their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire. "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."
Apply this to reason and we see why they ignore evidence. It is better to be ignorant and go to heaven, than have insight and go to hell. - Dimensio, on 05/18/2009, -5/+32Do you have any actual argument of substance to offer in support of your position?
- Hetman, on 05/18/2009, -5/+31Do you have an alternative theory with as much evidence? If you do please release it. You would be one of the most famous people in the history of science.
- inactive, on 05/18/2009, -4/+29It's as close to the truth as we have right now. We ridicule those other people because they are further from the truth, but they keep trying to push their opinion as the truth despite their lack of evidence.
If they had a better theory, maybe we'd have some debate, and maybe we'd have a real controversy instead of this contrived nonsense between what all of the evidence says and what myth and superstition say. - franklymister, on 05/19/2009, -0/+24Can you be religious and not try to argue for stupid things like "the world is 5,000 years old" or "god hates queers" or "the rapture is coming, so let's not worry about the earth?"
There are a lot of religious people on Digg, which is awesome, but if you want to be the superstitious bigoted type, then you're going to get called out on it. - inactive, on 05/19/2009, -1/+23How appropriate. Potato shadows offer nothing of substance.
(hm..I must be channeling lostlyrics) - inactive, on 05/18/2009, -2/+23I'm sure they will, and I'd probably be fascinated with what their operational theory is.
- ironhide, on 05/19/2009, -2/+20Do tell....
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.conservapedia.com/Creationism - inactive, on 05/19/2009, -1/+18Hint: You are a jack ass, and there are no uncomfortable holes, just faith-based rationalizations from the Jesus crowd. Nobody's persecuting Christians, we just thing you're really funny... like the guy on the corner with the tin foil hat.
- novenator, on 05/19/2009, -5/+21Dugg for Scientific American and debunking wingnut creationist nonsense.
- onwardknave, on 05/19/2009, -2/+17If you believe science is narrow-minded, then you don't understand science. The scientific method allows for failure, to refine mistakes, and start again. Science doesn't preach truth, it seeks truth.
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -0/+15==FTA==
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
==End FTA==
This is a really important point about science in general which the general public really gets totally wrong. - franklymister, on 05/19/2009, -1/+15You don't get a vote on reality, sorry InRussetShadows. Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean your superstitious beliefs are correct.
By all means, teach your children that the earth is 5,000 years old, that every human being is descended from Adam & Eve, and that the sum of human scientific learning is "ribald nonsense."
Please do.
It will only mean more open space at university for my kids, and less competition in the professional job market. Just don't come asking for my tax dollars to help them out with welfare when they discover their lack of education at your hands has trapped them in poverty. - SSPink, on 05/19/2009, -1/+14I've never seen someone say so much without saying anything. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
- SSPink, on 05/19/2009, -2/+15Your post is nonsense. Can you think of a single hypothesis that is considered to be a truth? Do you even know what a hypothesis is?
- franklymister, on 05/19/2009, -2/+14So Inrussetshadows, are you saying that somehow we move from established scientific theories, backwards to hypotheses, where they then somehow fail?
Since by your logic, whatever we believe to be true eventually becomes shown to be a "failed hypothesis," what does that say for the old creationism superstitions? - kinseyincanada, on 05/19/2009, -2/+14Is this whole creationism in schools thing a huge deal in the states? I dont understand how someone could actually want to teach creationism in a science class. When i was in high school when we started to learn about evolution, the big bang etc... the teacher simply said that what we are learning is not meant to offend anyone but this is a science class.
- snogye, on 05/19/2009, -6/+17Can I still be religious and use digg? Is that cool with everyone?
- youannoyme, on 05/19/2009, -0/+10If the creationists were targeting me as their audience, then I'd be with you. But as long as they are targeting (or being!) those in power, there is no excuse for sitting idly by. Doesn't matter if 99% of people know the truth, if the remaining 1% gets to make all the decisions...
- YawehsDead, on 05/19/2009, -0/+10http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -1/+10@Tim,
I dugg you up for the second half of your comment, but as onwardknave said, if you think science is narrow-minded then you don't understand science. Also science can never prove that there is or is not a god, those that claim it is trying to do one or the other don't understand science.
When it comes to the origins of life and the universe, religion tries to explain who did it and why. Science tries to explain how it happened. These are not incompatible. - CaptOblivious, on 05/19/2009, -2/+11There are way too many people that believe that the bible is word for word literal truth and contains no parables or allegory.
The way they came up with the age of the earth? by adding up the ages of everyone mentioned in genesis.
No, you aren't going to convince these people with anything as "flimsy" as actual evidence and thanks to their preachers leading them to do so will make sure that their children are brought up as willfully ignorant as they are.
This is why I call them the !right wing, They are just not right in the head. - Batfishy, on 05/19/2009, -2/+10I hate to agree with the "you're really funny" part, but the argument for ID is getting pretty silly.
- eir574, on 05/19/2009, -2/+10Obviously, ironhide, InRussetShadows must think that those sites were started by atheist scientists in order to make fun of the people they call creationists. And anyway, I believe they're now called cdesign proponentists.
- CaptOblivious, on 05/19/2009, -1/+8On that very same thought process, when the books of the bible were written we did not have the sophistication that we do now or the scientific understanding that has developed in the last 2000 years.
I can't understand how the creationists can deny the intricacy and majesty of creation by trying to make it fit into the confines of a book written before any of the concepts required for it's execution were even conceived of.
Seriously, creationists, there is one thing that science hasn't even approached yet, the creation of everything, The creation of the universe was caused by something, and no one has any idea of how or why.
Why couldn't that be the moment of creation and all the events between then and now a part of his plan? - borez, on 05/19/2009, -7/+14Enough already with this Creationist BS. It never made any sense when I was 10yrs old, let alone now.
- CaptOblivious, on 05/19/2009, -0/+7Your faith in your beliefs is your own, and that's fine, Enjoy it.
The problem is that the rest of the world has evidence that says otherwise, lots of it. The rest of us want our children to grow up knowing the truth as supported by the evidence and NOT your beliefs.
Some of you INSIST that we teach the children based on your beliefs, regardless of the evidence AND regardless of the fact that we may have entirely different beliefs than you. And that is the problem.
Bottom line, Science should be taught in "SCIENCE CLASS" and religious beliefs should be taught in "RELIGION CLASS".
If you can't get your young to attend religion class for proper indoctrination it does NOT mean you can pervert science class to do the job for you - EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -2/+9Two words "Sarah Palin"
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -1/+8The thing is Fundamentalist Christians for the most part believe in literal interpretation of the Bible, although thankfully not that many run around chopping hands off.
- ironhide, on 05/19/2009, -2/+9Even better, "nylon eating bacteria"
- inactive, on 05/19/2009, -1/+7I just want to be a nice guy and help the needy whenever I can, kinda like Jesus, that's all...
- staydead, on 05/19/2009, -2/+8"So... dead matter organizes itself(!) in order to become living cells, right? Right? Come on, explain that to me... make me believe that..."
Why not? Dead matter organizes itself into lots of different things. Snowflakes, planetary systems, galaxies, columns of heated water..
No one claims that a modern fully formed cell just happened. What you are talking about BTW isn't evolution, it's abiogenesis.. God could have started life and that would in no way invalidate evolution.
Do a search on abiogenesis, there's lots of good info on how things may have started. - inactive, on 05/19/2009, -4/+10Another good resource:
"Yet in all the ongoing debates about creationism and its descendant, "intelligent design," one element of the controversy is rarely mentioned: the evidence, the empirical truth of evolution by natural selection. And that evidence is vast, varied, and magnificent, drawn from a huge spectrum of scientific inquiry ranging from genetics, anatomy, and molecular biology to paleontology and geology."
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/ - TimtheTaxMan, on 05/19/2009, -9/+15<- Is not religious at all. That said, I think it is sad that many of you believe that science is the absolute answer to all philosophical debate in the universe. To me, it seems as narrow minded as you claim the religious are. If history and indeed science have taught us anything at all, it is that we don’t understand much and that we are often wrong in our assumptions.
To the religious, I respect your beliefs, but we are tired of you trying to force them on us. I believe the hostility increasing directed toward your beliefs are a backlash against the constant attempt to legislate them upon us. Let’s keep the dialogue open and free without coercion. - zezerik, on 05/19/2009, -4/+10Yeah, but don't say anything bad about Apple computers or you will be ostracized.
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -0/+6Being religious isn't the problem. Being ignorant is. I have some very dear family friends, whom I consider my aunt and uncle. They are Fundamentalist Christians, but they aren't ignorant and don't go jamming their religion into other people's faces.
Look at how Obama seperates his public life from his personal religious life compared to GW Bush. His commencement speech at Notre Dame University was one of the few times that he really publicly addressed his religious beliefs and even then it wasn't chest pounding "look at how great a Christian I am" attitude. It was humble. Obama is thoughtful, respects science and like so many Christians has learned that science and Christianity are compatible. GW Bush on the other hand had to keep invoking God and Christianity at every other turn and rejected science to the detriment of the nation. - inactive, on 05/19/2009, -1/+6We've repeatedly confirmed and observed evolution in virii, plants, fruit flies, et al.
- bubbashine, on 05/19/2009, -1/+6This article is useful not for arguing with creationists, as their belief lies outside the realm of evidence, it is useful for explaining evolutionary biology. Great article.
- cretin, on 05/19/2009, -2/+7Make the argument quick. Make it three words. "Vestigial whale legs."
Walk away whistling. - YawehsDead, on 05/19/2009, -1/+6One page:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=1 ...
ETA: never mind. doesn't seem to work - lostlyrics, on 05/19/2009, -4/+9hey preacher 8)
I prefer my sermon stirred, not shaken
remember it was a time when loads of people
ran around with feet cut off and salt was currency.
onto that you have to change climate to deserted
with subsequent heat pressuring average skulls
anyway so any horror summoned needs a boast - JanTik, on 05/19/2009, -1/+6Even a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, highlight their failure to understand:
Since these very same believers accept that God is spirit (Genesis 1:2), they should know that when God says, “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), this image had nothing to do with man’s physical appearance. Even if they will sort of like accept this fact, they get in real trouble with the obvious deduction – that God’s image is therefore related to what makes us different from the animals – our humanity.
The staggering implications of such thinking are just too much for them to bear, because it often undercuts their preconceived notions and prejudices about life, social behavior, culture, and other faiths.
But worse: Considering only man’s outward appearance leads to a flawed (quasi-religious) worldview. Such erroneous beliefs historically have lead to racial and cultural intolerance, and if I can venture a guess – this might also be the reason why many people seem to have an “us-versus-them” mentality regarding other nations, or to mistrust international bodies like the U.N.
Now, rather than thinking along these lines – which are threatening to many die-hard creationists – the easier way out is to question science – especially if they do not have a good understanding what science is all about.
The sorry fact is that, by trying to pit the bible against science, they show that they understand neither. - CamperBob, on 05/19/2009, -1/+6Because the Christians won't *let* people educate themselves. They have bravely girded their spiritual armor against Satan, but they're scared ***** of Richard Dawkins.
Christians are the ones trying to rewrite science books, pack school boards, and threaten kids with eternal punishment if they don't believe ridiculous things.
If they could keep their mythology out of the classrooms and voting booths, nobody would have a problem with them. When's the last time you saw a bunch of indignant scientists attacking Buddhists? - lostlyrics, on 05/19/2009, -1/+5night shade plant - how intelligent ... :D
- dragon76, on 05/19/2009, -2/+6Philosophy is a human construct, scientists work on taking the human bias out of the equation; all that's left is science and maths.
- Tiggums, on 05/19/2009, -1/+5I wish the world were more that way too, I'm not deeply religious, but I am religious, and I have to laugh that you comment about us trying to force our beliefs upon you, when this is coming in a comment about an article calling my beliefs nonsense. No matter what my political views are, I have enough right in this nation to believe as I wish, and to disagree with some choices being made (the same as you do, at least I hope you are as fortunate). I do not force you to agree with me, but I am willing to talk about my views if people are willing to listen. I don't claim to know everything, religion is more based on faith than most people are willing to go along with. I do not know all the answers and I don't claim to. I will probably be dug down and that is perfectly fine as well because you are just stating your beliefs about what I say.
People give me a hard time about being Christian. I live my life with that, and I'm okay with it. Christians are not forcing their beliefs on you any more than are being pushed right back. We are forced to listen to your beliefs in daily life, but we shouldn't be able to express ours? I do not hate those who believe that I am wrong, and I do not hate people who think differently, I just have a different point of view, I respect your beliefs (even if I disagree with them), but if I cannot express my views (in legislative or any other forms), then are you not being the monster you claim for us to be? Thank you for being more opened minded than most Tim, but we are also tired of the forcing of beliefs and of legislation against us. So think about that next time a Christian talks to you. - EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -0/+4Why must it be an issue at all?
When it comes to the origins of life and the universe, religion tries to explain who did it and why. Science tries to explain how it happened. These are not incompatible.
Religion is based on beliefs, science is based on facts. One is taught in church the other in school. They should coexist side by side. - staydead, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3I don't think refuting creationist nonsense which positions itself as scientific is saying that "science is the absolute answer to all philosophical debate".
- TheMoniker, on 05/19/2009, -0/+3Science itself is predicated on certain philosophical assumptions (such as causality, as Hume famously pointed out). However, it is the case that much that was within the sole domain of philosophy years ago is now, more strictly speaking, within the domain of science. Science itself evolved from natural philosophy, after all.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 