What is Digg?659 Comments
- stevenb486, on 10/14/2007, -28/+208Theres no point debating this, anyone who believes in creationism over evolution won't be swayed by things like "facts" or "evidence" to prove one way or another.
- Drood, on 10/12/2007, -15/+158Respectful debate? On Digg?
HAHAHAHAHA!
Dugg though... - Azerael, on 10/12/2007, -23/+121Science is lies made by the devil.
My family and I are funding a push for a debate on the nature of light. We believe that light is not "wave particles" as the evil atheist slaves of Voldemo- Er, Satan would have you believe, it is actually God's Love which lights our path to the fridge at night. - stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -10/+78Preaching to the choir? Any reasonable person has already reconciled their beliefs with science. The unreasonable one’s obviously won’t be interested in reasonable arguments such as this.
- resplence, on 10/12/2007, -10/+71Actually, the things that really bother me in all this discussion are:
1. Serious Intelligent Design proponents are reticent when it comes to defining what the "intelligent" force behind it all actually is;
2. They therefore try to dodge it by resorting to arguments like "just wanting to show that there are other theories available" (and yet we don't hear about any of them, since they only lobby in favor of their own);
3. However, at the first discrete stutter of currently established science, they're more than happy to immediately go "A-HA! Since your theory can't explain it, obviously God (our theory) must've done it! (is the only one able to explain it)".
They don't play fair, which fallaciously, I admit, leads me to be suspicious of the whole initiative. - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -9/+66There is only one argument to remember:
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - BlueInGreen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+62@SIRBERUS
disclaimer: I Am A Scientist
Uh, you call that Science? Taking the title article on carbon dating being inaccurate: Sure the author has a PhD, but does he do science? No, he works for the "Institute for Creation Research", and publishes his papers in the "International Conference on Creationism." He has an obviously predetermined outcome in mind, and bending facts to open up the possibility of his silly religious belief not being a complete fiction is his methodology.
...so I've got to ask, is that REALLY your idea of open? - compucomp2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45Yeah... in scientific circles there is absolutely no debate about whether evolution in its general form is true, sure they argue about its particulars but no real scientist argues for intelligent design or anything of that ilk.
It is stunning IMO that in 2007, in an age of high technology, a large portion of the American public still denies evolution. To scientists denying evolution might as well be saying that the sun revolves around the earth. - togra, on 10/12/2007, -18/+58Answersingenesis is full of ***** and only an ignorant fool with no education at all could possibly buy that nonsense. You don't know what science is
- timbro1, on 10/12/2007, -38/+75anyone who believes in creationism has a mental defect.
- bannonto, on 10/12/2007, -10/+46I taught at a school with a very religious student body. Once a week a group of students, led by a local youth minister, would use my class-room to discuss important religious fact (?). As I was at my desk early most mornings, I was able to listen in on the "enlightening" discussions. These students and their faithful leader wanted to spread the word that dinosaurs never existed. They had parents that wanted to take any book that talked about dinosaurs out of the library.
Like you said, once someone has their mind brainwashed one way, it is hard for them to listen to logic.
BTW, when I told my 4 year old about this group, she asked me, "Haven't they ever been to a museum?" - Adenosine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41There is an evolution debate. There is NOTHING in science that is not a debate. Even the simplest concepts require constant challenges - ask a math person to show you the proof that 1+1=2 (it's not so simple http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html ) . In the last 5 years so many rock hard facts about life and science have been over turned, and the next 5 years will be no different. No one should think of evolution has the final solution - fact is it is only the best solution that we've come up with for now. Next time some one wants to debate you should stop and say, "ok let's talk this out"
- Hugues, on 10/12/2007, -10/+44"such a delicate topic of discussion"
Are you insane ?
Creationism doesn't deserve more than a kick in the nuts and a "Beware of Sects" stamp on it.
Facing morons when you discuss doesn't make a topic "delicate". Come out of the Politically Correct Closet. - KiLLB0T, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!
-Ned Flanders - bewing77, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32@SPARTAN
800 years ago most people belived the earth was flat, the sun and moon traveled across the sky and the stars where holes in the heavenly ceiling. People claiming anything else risked beeing burned on a stake. So tell me again why having a lot of people beliving in stupidity makes the same stupidity a valid point of discussion. - walkingdogs, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40The funny thing is that there is even a debate. I just don't understand how in this era of technology that this is even an issue. The fact is that the theory of evolution HAS been proven to be a FACT. When darwin first proposed it, it was a theory and has been described as such ever since. Yes we are still learning about how it operates and works and what factors surrounding it effect it, but the fact that evolution exists has been PROVEN without a doubt. So I just don't understand how we allow this to be debated. It's 2007 and we are working on string theory, how to get man to Mars, cloning life, and reproducing body parts but we still have doubts whether something as concrete as evolution is real and allow it to be doubted by mythology and stories.
- popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -13/+38Yes, but the problem with this article is that it uses LOGIC.
And not only does LOGIC require intelligence, because one has to understand causality, interdependence and
the prime importance of observable evidence, repeatability and other crucial precepts of the scientific method (We all know that religion typically flourishes among the less educated and less intelligent) but more importantly
LOGIC has never been the medium of creationists. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of areas where scientific fact
disputes biblical lore, but the beauty of religious illogic is that it CAN NEVER be disputed because the sole basis for all knowlege
is in that book. Its the ultimate circular argument: Why is the book valid? Because it says it in the book!
(But unfortunately the concept of circularity also requires intelligence, so that counter argument fails as well).
Ultimately the only answer to creationists (since logic will never work) is utter and total ridicule.
My personal tactic is to not argue using logic at all, but to laugh at them and tell them that they are uneducated and
probably unintelligent. If they act offended I usually just laugh in their face and tell them to get an education, but if they
get particularly offended I get offended "back" at them and tell them that I have not offended them; they have offended me for blaspheming
science. - mastercheif, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34Wow, I just went to that site. What a hoot! Carbon dating is NOT wrong. I am sorry.
- thegaminglounge, on 10/12/2007, -15/+39Agreed
Too many disrespectful people with the wrong info and with the belief that they know all......I dugg it too!!!! - Kellan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27http://kellanstec.com/15_answers.pdf
Here's a prettier PDF with no ads. - togra, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29How are these straw man arguments? They are the exact same arguments creationists use all the time. The fact that they are stupid and wrong and have mostly been discredited for at least a century doesnt stop you using them.
- jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25@ spartan
The opinions of a million people are irrelevant if none of them know anything about the subject. - HullCrushDepth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Journal of Creation is not peer reviewed, and can hardly claim to be unbiased.
- popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Exactly. It makes me sick that people are so afraid of "offending" religious people.
Dammit, they offend me every friggin day. Creationism is an affront to MY system of thought, which also happens to be the system of thought that put men on the moon, cured polio and built the computer in front of you. - Zoctogon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26I was brought up strictly religious, and as an open minded and intelligent individual, I acknowledge and basically accept evolution.
The thing that my mind cannot accept however, is that if evolution really is true, then our individual lives have no meaning (yes perhaps there is meaning in society, in the species, but individually I don't matter at all... according to evolution. I could commit suicide and it doesn't matter).
I will die in 40-60 years and will be forgotten. There is nothing more for me according to evolution... right?
I hope I am wrong. Your thoughts? - azimir, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27To point out, matter can be created or destroyed:
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/nytimes.html
That's actually a big part of the whole E=mc^2 thing (you may have seen it around?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%C2%B2
What we have trouble creating and destroying is energy. As to that, and the laws that govern the fabric of the universe:
"Science is working on that."
No, we don't have all the answers *today*, but let scientists do what they do and the answers will come. Trying to shut the process down with creationist strategies seems counter productive every time I see it. - hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -29/+50
But how can you disprove the fact that the 9/11 bombers are enjoying heaven right now with their 72 virgins?
//religion is for the ignorant
///ignorance is bliss - ColdFusiowned, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I guess if a reasonable debate is not possible then I am at the very least sharing an article that may interest a select few :D
- popothebright, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Better make the most of your life, then.
That seems like a pretty good message, no? - Hugues, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27"THE BIG BANG
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."
source : http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
"unknown" "speculation"
So as you see The Science Guy doesn't say "we know it all". Creationists do. I'll stick with the guy who admit he doesn't know yet. Belief is not a proof. - PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29i usually don't even bother answering creationists, because there is no 'evolution debate', but it's good to have some talking points next time i get cornered by one and want to eat my hands.
- WoollyMittens, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26Why bother? You can't argue faith anyway. Whatever argument you come up with, they'll always bitch-slap you with their bibble / koran / torah.
- goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -18/+36The debate's over and creationism lost. I guess nobody got the memo.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Readable version:
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF - nick111, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21There is no debate.
In the rest of Western world this isn't even countenanced as an issue.
If America degrades science in schools then it will fall behind - especially as one of THE growth areas in the coming millenium will be biotech. - HullCrushDepth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21I'm sure not all Christians believe the arguments listed, but they are actual arguments used by actual proponents of creationism. In no way are they straw man arguments.
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Well said. You can't have a logical debate about fairy tales.
- resplence, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19My limited understanding on the topic led me to assume that this applies to all matter/energy resultant from the Big Bang.
Even if science still has not good answer for that, "God did it" should not be taken as a plausible explanation here. - drum_bum, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@popothebright
Well said.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
--Thomas Jefferson - DanielHC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@Adenosine
That's true.
But creationists don't do science. That's why there is no "debate" with them. And that's why is pointless to argue with them. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+34I still laugh at the fact people still believe in God, or whatever other fairy tale they believe in. I actually feel kinda bad for the fact they are so small minded.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain
- bewing77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@SPARTAN
Some theories, such as brane theories in string theory or the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum wave function collapse does indeed allow for a multiverse view where other universes might exist outside ours. The problem for the argument that God is an entity outside our universe though is that it would seem impossible to ever interact with a universe other than the one you exist in, or even having any empirical experience of the existence of one. How would God, existing in another universe actively create and manage some kind of control over ours?
Sure, the theological argument would of course be "God is omnipotent and omnipresent. He can do what he likes". This does however only lead to a non-debate and a resignation on the believers part to just that, belief. You basically state that there is a God, and since he can do whatever he likes, any proof of the opposite you can come up with is disproved by default just by the fact that God can do whatever he likes. I could construct an argument exactly as valid by stating that there is no universe as you know it, your entire mind is simply a computer simulation, and anything you ever experience is only a part of the simulation. These kinds of arguments can be constructed ad infinitum and used to "prove" anything one wants, but in reality they prove only one thing: that the existence (or non-existence) of an omnipotent deity can never be proved, and believing or disbelieving in one is purely an act of faith.
This basically means that we have to disregard any of these unprovable notions from the debate and either just assume that the world we live in consists of the parts we can observe, or assume that since we cannot ever know the true nature of anything we might as well not even attempt to do so. And based on the observable universe there would seem to be quite allot of events that do support the theory of evolution, and quite a non-existing real observations that disprove it or that proves any creationist theory. - zephc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19The problem is that 'faith' is not an accurate way of knowing the world around you. It's a wholly subjective way of thinking you know the world, but in fact it's more like pulling answers out of your ass.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@SIRBERIUS,
You said "In the battle of religion vs. anti-religion... it's a draw." That's why people heap scorn on you, because you come out with smug little falsehoods like that.
When you discuss beliefs with christians, you're coming from a friendly point of view, so of course they are friendly to you. When you start an argument with atheists, you are most likely spewing condescension and aiming to sow discord (judging from your posts here), that's why they react scornfully to you. Step back and observe yourself sometime. - annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@ Spartan
I guess you didn't bother reading the article, or at-least you didn't make it to #4.
Where can I find a copy of this technical journal you speak of? Any links? - jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14While there are a lot of vocal atheists on here, evolution has nothing to do with belief or lack of belief in God. The Catholic church has no problem with evolution.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25@gir53457
Just like that invisible spoon revolving around your head all the time without any physical presence.
See I can be stupid and ignorant too. - ttread, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18I agree, there is little to be gained by debating creationists point by point, because they do not think rationally. Creationism is an emotional reaction to science. All of their "arguments" have been thoroughly debunked and discredited over and over again, and the scientific explanations are widely available on the internet. If people would do their homework with an honest and open attitude there would be no creationism movement.
Truly, scorn and ridicule is the appropriate response to people who are waging a war on science with the intention of replacing it with medieval superstition and fear. -
Show 51 - 100 of 655 discussions
No big deal, vassever. Bruno is our latest guest for Digg Dialogg. 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is