The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
$25 million Creation Museum being built in Kentucky
msnbc.msn.com — Like most natural history museums, this one has exhibits showing dinosaurs roaming the earth. Except here, the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve.
msaleem- 466 diggs
- digg it
- drseth, on 10/12/2007, -65/+12Very nice!
- Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -81/+3Dupe, Please Digg Original:http://www.digg.com/politics/Evolution_s_Backers_in_Kansas_Mount_a_Counterattack
- ldjarmin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40Umm, Aidenag, for an article to be a dupe, it has to be about the same thing, not just generally on the same general topic. Two stories about creationism does not make the second one a dupe...if that logic held, there would be one technology article a day.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16i would concur with the poster idjarmin. Its ok aidenag, I know how the words Kentucky and Kansas may seem like the words are similar there for dupe, but they really arent.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Imagine if, instead of the snake tempting Eve, it was an allosaurus or something. Imagine an allosaurus with no legs.
- n_md, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37Believe in creationism or not I think god would have liked the money spent in a way that actually helped people.
- elitegrunt, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4I don't understand why people have to be so ignorant on this whole issue. When it comes down to it, it's a matter of faith. What seems impossible to evolutionists is that the world was created in 6 days buy God. What seems impossible for creationists to believe is that the world came about over millions or billions of years and humans evolved from the lowest life-forms. Either way you look at it, neither side can be proven. It's all faith. I realize people or going to have forum wars about faith-based topics as long as forums exist, but it annoys me to see ignorant people bashing others for their beliefs. I'm not asking us to all get along. That'd be naive, but can't we at least so some tact and maturity while discuss these topics?
- h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28From the article: "Americans aren't gullible enough to believe they came from a fish".
This guy can't be serious... - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22"Either way you look at it, neither side can be proven. It's all faith."
The difference being that there are experiments and observations that support evolution. As for the existence of God, it would seem that the enormous and ever increasing amount of suffering in the world today would be evidence that God does not exist. - corinY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Elitegrunt, it's not all faith. There are many significant differences between faith and science. Science is experimental and scientific theories are disprovable. Faith is can not be disproved and isn't based on quantified or qualified observation under controlled conditions. It is pure intellectual laziness to suggest that some guy pontificating has the same kind of weight as 100s of people carrying out precisely controlled experiments that are openly discussed, interpreted and cross-validated. I bet you think that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution.
- elitegrunt, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Science is made of facts. Facts are proven by experiments. It is impossible to conduct experiments 'proving' either claim. Until we can go back to that exact time and place and conduct experiments proving one or the other to be true, they are both just theories.
- sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@elitegrunt: you are obviously ignorant about the difference between a scientific theory and a "hey I just thought up this idea" theory. If you have measurable evidence that can be falsified for one theory, and no measurable evidence or falsifiability for a competing theory, the first is valid. The second doesn't even qualify as a true theory, as it falls outside the realm of science.
Please stop trying to equate the two sides; to do so shows either ignorance of the subject being discussed or a willful attempt to subvert the scientific process because of predetermined beliefs. - Pwelborn1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1If you cannot look at history and realize that for thousands of years we've had "scientific processes" for "proving" this or that to be true... only later to be debunked by more accurate data and methods then you are now, at this very moment putting your FAITH in the "current scientific process" and deluding yourself into believing that everything you believe is NEVER going to be disproved by newer and better methods. How naive. How then can you scoff at others for being skeptical by basing their skepticism off of "recorded history" witch is more accurate than "current conventional wisdom" or "science". Stop claiming deluding yourself into believing you've found something more realistic than "faith" and give respect to those who respectfully disagree with you.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Kentucky. The new Alabama."
Or is it Kansas? Hmmm...
"Kentucky. The new Kansas." - thenorwegian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1scoot, I must say, you don't build a strong argument with your horrible grammar and spelling. Seriously, if you care about what you're saying, take the time to write it correctly.
On a side note, you sound like a complete nut. That whole ice meteorite thing? Are you joking? I am a religious person, but I do not believe that God created the earth in 6 days. I believe in evolution. I understand sticking to your guns, but you make yourself sound like a religious zealot, which is a shame. Its people like you that make us look bad.
- vegasbright, on 10/12/2007, -29/+130Its a monument to the retarded.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -90/+31I know I am going to get dugg down for this but I believe in creationism. From the evidence I have seen there is evidence for the counterpart of evolution. We live in a free world with people with diferent ideas,opinions, and beliefs. Bashing people with different beliefs of the majority of the Digg audience isn't helping. So, I take my comment with much caution for I will offend many, but speak with what I truely believe in.
Sincerely,
Scoot87 - m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -12/+64rofl, you found evidence for creationism that doesn't invoke numerous logical fallacies?
- Godel, on 10/12/2007, -12/+63Bashing retards is productive. It makes ignorant morons on the fence believe that creationism might be true. There are people who believe that the government is controlled by reptilian men. If everyone started respected their beliefs, moronic people might believe there is something to it. The morons vote, so if we want evolution to be taught as the truth it is, then we need to call out the retards and their retarded beliefs.
- wedges, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37you mention this evidence... so what is it?
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -75/+14yes i have molaria/wedges...including (also evidence for a global flood):
1. The oldest tree is less than 5000 years old (from tree rings)
2. The oldest desert, the sahara desert is less than 5000 years (tested the growing rate of the desert each year and found out how long ago was the begginning of the desert)
3. the oldest coral reef, the great barrier reef, is less than 5000 years old (scientists researched the growing rate of the coral reef)
4. The Grand Canyon is the creation of a "breached" natural dam that broke through rushing water creating the giant canyon, not millions of years through the Coloroado River. A modern example of this is when Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 80's and spewed a huge mud flow. Now a natural dam was created and soon broke, soon rushing this spewing hot mud and creating a present day miniature canyon. The rushing of the mud mixed up and stratefied the different minerals of dirt into layers. Some people see layers as the geologic record, but it could also be interpreted through the flood. - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -53/+16Godel, you are furthering the constructive debate on this issue by bashing people who have a different opinion then you. The more you bash, the less credibility you have. If you really want to persuade people with your own beliefs, give them constructive arguements.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -59/+13ahh...why can't we all get along :(
- Drealoth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+83You science types are so boring. Over billions of years, we sloowwwwlllyyy got to where we are today.
Yawn.
You really need to concede to the obvious truth that only a few thousand years ago we were jousting on the backs of Tyrannosaurs. I think that the awesomeness of that really overweighs any "facts" or "evidence" that you might try and throw at me. It's never been the same since the Dinosaur Wars of BC3062, and this museum is going to show and honour these fallen heroes.
Why do you all hate freedom? - Godel, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22@scoot.
I can't persuade people to change their beliefs, once people believe something they believe it and there's rarely any use in trying to persuade anyone. The only thing you can do is get people who haven't made a decision yet to agree with you. If I were to treat you as anything less than the retard you were, people would think you have some rationality to your argument. You don't, you're a retard and I could care less about trying to "persuade" you. - ggrant2001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38Scoot,
What you mention are interpretations of selected facts, not evidence. I respect your right to believe anything you would like (including that Xenu once ruled around here). I also believe that belief in any explanation of how we arrived here requires a certain amount of faith. However, the preponderance of evidence suggest that the earth and the universe is indeed older that 6 or 7,000 years - ldjarmin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25Godel, is being a jerk really a necessary part of believing in evolution? Scoot87 answered requests from multiple people to show some evidence, and the only answer you have is ad hom arguments? Really? And you say not acting like a jerk would lend to people thinking higher of Creationism? I think your rudeness did a lot more for that than being civil would have done.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12Godel...if its true once people believe something that people will still believe it and rarely change their minds then it shows that people in general are close minded and wont look at the facts. I mean I myself have changed beliefs in many things because I try to believe in things that I feel are right and if there is evidence of something that contradicts my beliefs, then I change what I beleive in. yeah, what I just typed was kind of confusing, I hope you understant what I am trying to say.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -37/+9Ggrant, I would also say that the evidence for evolution is an interpretation of the facts. So both beliefs interpret the facts, except evolution is shown as proven science.
- Godel, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31I'm sorry I sound like a jerk, but I still hold that debating with retards is pointless. I can't convince the people who believe reptile men control the country don't actually exist, and I can't convince creationists that evolution exists. It is only harmful to the mental health of the country as a whole to treat creationists as anything less than nutjobs.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -37/+11Its interesting to see that most of my rebuttals, especially the evidence i give,have been dugg down. I think that when some people see that I believe in this "horse ***** of a belief" people will just decide to digg down every comment i make so they can shut up this "idiot." Oh well, I guss thats what you get from a democratic social bookmarking site.
- reidypeidy, on 10/12/2007, -29/+10Alright show us your evidence that creationism is wrong, but remember.. don't show us interpretations of selected facts, show us evidence. Also, "it's stupid to think that some god created everything, only retards think like that" is not evidence.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5The evidence I give is can be viewed as interpretive evidence because these are historic events, so i cant give you physical evidence. But the same goes for evolution. There is no physcial evidence that can be seen today. So I can show you examples of what we see today and interpret to you a logical interpretation to what we see today proves evidence for my belief. Same goes with evolution with the fossil record, radioemtric dating, geologic record...
- Godel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20@reidpeidy
Thank you for proving my point. You ask for evidence that creationsim doesn't exist, as if there was some actual intellectual debate going on. That lends creedance to the idea that creationism might actually be true. I don't need to give any evidence becuase its a crazy idea, just like reptile men controlling our country is a crazy idea. - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -26/+7Heres my theory of the global flood.
Before the flood.... the earth was on a straight axis and not tilted like it is today. Which meant that most of the world had spring weather because the Sun's sunlight hit the whole earht more directly. Evidemce of this is from the fossils in the north pole of tropical plants and animals. The earth was also more less mountainous, which meant there were more hills. There was also less water and people and animals were able to roam more freely.
Now what trigger the flood... An ice meteorite hit the earth triggering a flood. Reasons why I belive this. An ince meteorite goes through our solar system and passes some of our outer planets and the gratvitational pull sucked some of the ice to the planets like a natural satellite, giving off ice rings off saturn and neptune, The ice also fell onto mars, and the heat of mars melted the ice and created canyons in mars. The lack of a atmosphere caused the water to leave mars... - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5Godel... your point os not proven...I said BOTH sides of evolution and creation only give intepreted evidence, THe fact that this happened in the past and is assumed to continue to go on today shows the lack of real physical evidence for evolution.
- ldjarmin, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9Godel, I agree with Scoot. You seem to naturally assume that evolution is just innately, no evidence needed, true, and that is simply not an argument accepted by any credible scientist. Man doesn't, without any outside help, grow from a child to a adult and go "Oh, I know where this ground I'm walking on came from! Tiny amoebas billions of years ago slowly evolved over time after a Big Bang took the original starting materials of the universe and created the planets!"...You realize that evolution wasn't even really thought of, especially not the depth and level of complexity it is now, until recent centuries. We only have the idea of evolution from scientific observations (and conjectures), not an innate knowledge like hunger and sexual desire.
- vhcougar, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8godel, shut the ***** up about "reptile men"; you brought this up in your first post and keep mentioning it, yet no one else really seems to care. probably because that's not what we're talking about.
many thanks to ggrant, idjarmin, and reed. "you're a retard and I could care less about trying to "persuade" you" isn't such a great argument. - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5(continuing on my global folld theory)
now the ice meteorite passes mars onto earth. Evidence showing that an ice meteorite could have gotten onto the earth is the evidence of frozen mammoths with their food still green inside their stomachs. Which shows how quickly they froze. It is not possibly cold enough on this earth to freeze a mammonth that way. An ice meteoerite is much colder than anything on this earth. So I would belive that an ice meteorite hits the earth, instatnly freezing and killing all the mammoths. It fractures the earths crust, causing the creation of the different plates. This also triggered an eruption of water from below the earths crust to flow out and flood the earth... - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41"4. The Grand Canyon is the creation of a "breached" natural dam that broke through rushing water creating the giant canyon, not millions of years through the Coloroado River. A modern example of this is when Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 80's and spewed a huge mud flow. Now a natural dam was created and soon broke, soon rushing this spewing hot mud and creating a present day miniature canyon. The rushing of the mud mixed up and stratefied the different minerals of dirt into layers. Some people see layers as the geologic record, but it could also be interpreted through the flood."
You can't be serious. You really believe that?
How the hell does a sudden flood of water just suddenly plow through billions of pounds of solid rock? It's unbelievable that your compare the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption to the Grand Canyon. The top of the mountain was indeed eliminated, but it was not by a sudden rush of water, it was by enormous pressure from underneath the earth that grew with pressure over thousands of years and eventually blew the top of the mountain into the air and the "huge mud flow" that resulted did NOT carve any canyons in the land. And really, it was less of a mud flow and more of a magma tsunami. That destroyed trees and created new land when the magma hardened.
Anyway, I don't see how any of that pertains to the Grand Canyon. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Wow, your latest comment sounds like something straight out of the Colbert Report, you should send him idea. I literally laughed my ass off.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5(continuing...)
Now the cracks created from this ice meteortie created new floodwaters. So Noah is chillin in his boat for awhile, and jsut like my example ofMt. St Helens, the Grand Canyons was forned when the waters receded. Now some may wonder where all the water went. Well, Some of the land went up, which created huge mountains and mountain ranges, and the water flowed into the deep parts, which are now called oceans. I think im done for now, but if anyone would like to continue to debate, I guess Ill stay online. - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6Mr. ASS MAN:
your assuming at that time the Grand Canyon was solid rock. The grand canyon is made up of sediments and sir, you should understand the power of water when theres alot of it. This global flood would have alot of it, and rock isnt solid in water. - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5Alrite Diggers, I have made a comment about my beliefs and backed them up with reasons why I believe it. Like I said, people will either agree or disagree, but all I am doing is giving out a point of view that has been deeply rejected not through thoughtful rational but by slapstick criticism.
- reidypeidy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I don't really see how i proved any point since all i did was ask a question, which i see you are unable to do. If you have no evidence that evolution is the only answer, then stop acting like a little child. No one here will be on your side unless you prove yourself as an educated debater and not a raving lunatic. I personally believe that evolution happened but was controlled by a higher power such as God. I also don't believe in the big bang theory, but that God created the universe.
- abbott75, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5I would also like to add, Christians like myself believe that HUMANS were created 6000 years ago. Not the universe, it could have been hanging around millions of years beforehand but humans were created 6000 years ago. Therefore any argument saying that the Earth is older and therefore Creationism is wrong are null and void because the Earth IS probably a lot older than human kind.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4An arguement for humans coming about 6000 years ago is that many have researched and from a exponential growth chart see the first humans being on this earth about 6000years ago,
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29"I know I am going to get dugg down for this but I believe in creationism. From the evidence I have seen there is evidence for the counterpart of evolution. We live in a free world with people with diferent ideas,opinions, and beliefs. Bashing people with different beliefs of the majority of the Digg audience isn't helping. So, I take my comment with much caution for I will offend many, but speak with what I truely believe in."
Something that people often forget is that freedom of speech works both ways. You're allowed to speak any retarded thought that pops into your mind, but free speech does not mean you have a magic shield to protect you from people telling you that your thought was retarded. So when you say that you believe in creationism, thats great for you--I thank God we live in a country where you can say what you believe--but I'm not going to agree with you, and I'm certainly not going to give you a free pass when you say it. - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11I understand that there is no shield. All I am saying is that bashing people by saying someone is retarded or a flying spaghetti...isn't contributing to a debate on the topic but just a bunch of attacks that will lead to both sides hating each other more.
- tailboom22, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"Now what trigger the flood... An ice meteorite hit the earth triggering a flood."
I almost followed your made up logic, but then it seemed like you were inventing ways to take God out the flood explanation. If your trying so hard to take God out of the big picture, why not make up something that might actually work, like the progressive mutation of biological codes under environmental stress, instead of creationism and flooding? And what does flooding have to do with creationism anyway? Was that just a distraction? The real question was: How did the World come to be. The artical waaaaay up there is about people who want to believe that the world was invented by a being. All this talk about evidence, so produce evidence of this being. - AxiomShell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7It's not a matter of not allowing anyone to have an opinion.
In fact your right to have your own faith is protected by the constitution.
It's growing up and not trying to smuggle religion as science and not allowing faith or religion to silence scientific facts.
When french archaeologists found pharaonic ruins and remains they had to ask permission for the church (which denied it) to publish the findings. The problem was, some of the remains where 8000 years old and apparently the world only had 4000 years of history.
This is what we're fighting against. This is not dystopian future. This already happened. - Repsaj1980, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Scoot, very nice story. Wildly imaginative. But it's way, way harder to believe than evolution. Where do dinosaurs fit into your story? Or bones of early homonids? Or the millions of years it takes organic matter to form oil, or coal to form diamonds? I don't mean to be rude, but it sounds like you've made up some hokey story to make the world fit with your beliefs.
And of course nobody can deliver evidence against creationism, since creationists believe that everything was created in seven days. Including any evidence. Or otherwise some story is made up to give an explanation which still fits their beliefs.
Hunderds of thousands of our best minds have researched various aspects of evolution and geology all over the world, and none of them have come up with evidence for creationism.
Personally, I'm still curious about who, or what, started the Big Bang. - itsmekirby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I assume your argument is that it is too much of a coincidence to have three things on the planet which all have similar birth dates? That's very weak evidence, since surely you realize other forms of these things could have existed before this magical 5k year limit and... you know... died? Microbes have been found dating back 250 million years. If I was bored enough I could go find 3 things which were made 4000 years ago and go around claiming that life was created 4000 years ago.
I also fail to see how a flood can create a canyon, as uniformly distributed as floods are. - midgetpoker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17When did ignorance become a point of view?
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@scoot87
The fact that you think a giant ice meteorite smashing into the planet would freeze everything, rather than boil it away in a nightmarish hell of molten rock, is sufficiently moronic that it neatly undermines the rest of your argument. Here's a clue - giant balls of ice will not get through the atmosphere and crash into the ground without generating an absolutely insane amount of heat - much, much more than every nuclear weapon on the planet detonated simultaneously - and no doubt trigger almost every volcano on the opposite hemisphere of the planet, drowning the entire land mass in lava. - coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@scoot87: "The evidence I give is can be viewed as interpretive evidence because these are historic events, so i cant give you physical evidence. But the same goes for evolution. There is no physcial evidence that can be seen today."
Erm, it's quite easy to conduct practical experiments demonstrating the mechanisms of evolution, so that it exists and it works is beyond argument. Proving that it's responsible for the state we find ourselves in is a different matter, but given that evolution is such a very simple idea ("reproduce, die, hope your offspring manage to do the same"), and we can see it working every day, it is a way better candidate than anything else to explain the living state of the world.
Now I could try to demonstrate creationism, but I'd need a pretty impressive toolbox and a pretty big tract of hyperspace to experiment in. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2and weres the transition fossils needed for evolution to take place i guess bigfoot ate them
- nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@Atomic1fire
"and weres the transition fossils needed for evolution to take place i guess bigfoot ate them"
Contrary to creationist belief, there is plenty of transitional evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Also, evolutionary biology makes no claims about 'bigfoot'. There is fossil evidence of many hominid forms, not of which are called 'bigfoot'. - msundman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2@coolbru: "it's quite easy to conduct practical experiments demonstrating the mechanisms of evolution, so that it exists and it works is beyond argument"
Not true. That is, unless you consider a ball rolling to be evidence that it rolls uphill.
Natural selection has been shown to discard genetic information (the opposite of evolution on a big scale), and there is no known mechanism by which it and various mutations and recombinations could overcome local maximums in the survival-landscape. - thlinux, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5"Creationism is nothing more than biblical jazz-hands covering up the truth proven by science."
I'm sorry but when did evolution become a fact? It is still the "theory of evolution". Also why is it that anyone who believes in the Biblical account is a retard, moron, or needs to be "selected" from the gene pool. Ignorant comments such as this only establish their authors as persons unable to form an intelligent argument. I am a believer in the Biblical account however I see the evidence of natural selection in nature. I don't believe we evolved, but I believe many species have disappeared due to the inability to adapt as well as others. - elitegrunt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Fortunately, we aren't all as close-minded as you are, vegasbright. Interesting choice of words, however. I didn't know one had to be retarded to be a creationist, or vice versa.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11'The Grand Canyon is the creation of a "breached" natural dam'
1. If this were true then there would be remains of this natural dam, with it's attendant breach. Nothing like this exists at the head of the Grand Canyon.
2. The Colorado plateau slopes north-to-south, so a rush of water would have gone south through Arizona, not west to the Gulf of California. Water travels down hill, not along hill sides.
3. A rush of water would have created a mostly straight canyon, as momentum carries things in a straight line. The Grand Canyon is sinuous like a normal river canyon.
4. The Grand Canyon has numerous side canyons that run north-to-south and are just as deep. Water rushing west could not cut north-to-south running side canyons. - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"I'm sorry but when did evolution become a fact? It is still the "theory of evolution". Also why is it that anyone who believes in the Biblical account is a retard, moron, or needs to be "selected" from the gene pool. Ignorant comments such as this only establish their authors as persons unable to form an intelligent argument. I am a believer in the Biblical account however I see the evidence of natural selection in nature. I don't believe we evolved, but I believe many species have disappeared due to the inability to adapt as well as others."
Evolution is a fact (adaptation is apart of that), The theory of evolution is trying to explain why and how. Using the biblical account to find or derive solutions only will knock the theory of intelligent arguements. A safe all catchphrase will be "because it was created that way", once put it that way... who are we to question a god? The theory of an infinatly powerful god that specificly created humans with a kind and compassionate heart is more acceptable than the idea of infinate matter, probabilty and possibilities? What you may not realise is that the theory of ID and creationism is more destructive to out progress of foward think and learning than the theory of evolution. Questions and logic also falls out of the loop when refering to creationisim. - shefftim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The ‘museum’ is actually a homage to the long running TV show the Flintstones with Fred and Wilma renamed Adam and Eve. I guess for copyright reasons they had to change the name.
Spot the similarities from the outline of the TV show below.
‘The show is set in a town called Bedrock in the Stone Age era, but with a society identical to that of the United States in the mid-to-late 20th century; in the Flintstones' fantasy version of the prehistoric past, dinosaurs, saber-toothed tigers, woolly mammoths, and other long extinct animals coexist with cavemen.’ Wikipedia.
It’s official, Hanna Barbera wrote the Bible. - techmonkey4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's a monument to truthiness.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness) - Cameleopard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"All I am saying is that bashing people by saying someone is retarded or a flying spaghetti [monster]."
How dare you call my very deeply held beliefs in the FSM an attack!? Look, I understand not everyone wants to see the light, but your attacks on my precious beliefs are just too much for me to handle. The FSM is real, and all will one day be touched by his noodly appendage. I have the right to assert my beliefs and you have the right to shut the hell up and not make fun of them no matter how ludicrous they appear. You don't have to agree with me, you just have to accept that I'm right. RAmen! - sfgeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well here is the kicker...
The Sahara is only 5000 years old. really? That's amazing. I wonder where all that sand comes from? Oh maybe I dunno, eroded rock. What happens when sand is put under enormous pressure? It becomes sandstone or even glass. A desert is like a big loop and over time sand becomes stone and back again. So maybe the creationist folks said Hey check this out! A cycle in this part of the Sahara took 5000 years. Maybe if we act like the previous cycles of erosion never happened we can stitch this whole thing into our little fallacy.. that 5,000 years thing we keep trying to stick to.
You know, the chinese people may have a little problem with this whole 5,000 year thing. Apparently the creationist god didn't create chinese people, they were around before then, busy recording history. God just made white folks in kentucky. They were created by a totally different god because their history is more than 5,000 years ago.
WAIT a minute.....I GOT it.. The Chinese people ARE god. Yeah, they were like "I command the great people of china to construct a great wall! Oh, and could you make some "White People" while you are at it? Let's call them 'Christians.' They may be a failure however, so lets make up a god for them, then they can't come to us as their creator and b* about our cheap plastic toys and stuff.
YUP. The ming dynasty, bringing you The great wall and christians.
;) - Athyrius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think they made a huge mistake when they left out the Unicorns and Bigfoot.
Or would that be Bigfeet?
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -90/+31I know I am going to get dugg down for this but I believe in creationism. From the evidence I have seen there is evidence for the counterpart of evolution. We live in a free world with people with diferent ideas,opinions, and beliefs. Bashing people with different beliefs of the majority of the Digg audience isn't helping. So, I take my comment with much caution for I will offend many, but speak with what I truely believe in.
- nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -11/+47How on earth did these fundies manage to raise $25 Million dollars to build something as stupid as this?
- Araya213, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39So called christians are always more than happy to give money to ***** that will make them look like good people while they snort cocaine off of hookers asses.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Because giving money to a "ministry" is easier than making sure your money is actually going to a worthy cause.
- coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I'm sure it's deductible too.
- shefftim, on 10/12/2007, -8/+39In a strange way it's progress of a sort - at a glacial rate. Dinosaurs weren’t in the bible, but the evidence is so overwhelming they have now somehow to find a way to incorporate them into the Genesis mythology.
They are also having to go through some quite amazing mental contortions to counter/incorporate/shoehorn in other things that just aren’t in the Bible, but are provided by science. All the below from the museum website:
Genetic variations
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-variation.asp
Geographic evidence for ice ages
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter3.asp
K/T boundary
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/dinosaurs.asp
Perhaps because the Catholic Church has had more experience of this debate with science (and of losing it) ever since a memorable brush with Galileo, the Vatican quietly (wouldn’t want to upset the ‘ordinary’ Catholics who still believe in wafers being turned into flesh etc.) have now have embraced the idea of a universe billions of years old and the big bang theory of Stephen Hawking - that there have been several big bangs and several universes - because the Vatican likes the idea of the infinite and eternal.
They gave up on the creationism debate and now the Vatican astronomer describes creationism as: 'a kind of paganism':
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006
Give the American protestant fundamentalists another hundred years or so and they may get to the same position. It’s progress – of sorts. Weird though.- ldjarmin, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1I'll bite, at least in part. So, mind giving some more explanation as to why those three articles you link to are wrong, and that Evangelicals will change their tune in the future? An article talking about microevolution being the only physically observed kind of evolution is wrong how?
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"An article talking about microevolution being the only physically observed kind of evolution is wrong how?"
Because we haven't been around long enough, let alone capable of paying attention long enough, for much macroevolution to occur. A few thousand years of human existence is a dustspeck compared to the time it takes for species to evolve. Google it.
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/toiletpaper/history.html - Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I don't think anyone in the Vatican at any point ever gave creedance to creationalism. I grew up strictly Catholic and we learned about all kinds of theories pertaining to God and creation. One more logical one is that the creation story was written as a metaphor that says the 7 days thing could pertain to eons of evolution. Not once did we ever hear it suggested that the earth is only 6000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs. While it is quite humorous that the Church believed the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat, that doesn't mean they are just "keeping their mouth shut" on this one. No way.
That being said, I couldn't care less about the Catholic Church now. - covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@ldjarmin
It's wrong because so-called 'macro' evolution (the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is fabricated by creationists, but I'll run with it for the moment) has been proved through scientific observation, over and over again. Creationists hate this fact, since it undermines one of their favourite fraudulent arguments, but that doesn't make it any less true. - msundman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0@covertbadger
"It's wrong because so-called 'macro' evolution [..] has been proved through scientific observation, over and over again."
Then it should be easy for you to provide us with several indisputable examples, so why don't you?
"the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is fabricated by creationists, but I'll run with it for the moment"
Not so. That distinction is the same as the distinction between a ball rolling downhill and one running uphill. What has been shown are examples of degeneration, but "macro" evolution assumes the opposite. - covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@msundman
"Then it should be easy for you to provide us with several indisputable examples, so why don't you?"
My pleasure:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
"Not so. That distinction is the same as the distinction between a ball rolling downhill and one running uphill. What has been shown are examples of degeneration, but "macro" evolution assumes the opposite."
Your ball analogy is utterly irrelevant, no matter how many times you repeat it on this thread. I assume by 'degeneration' you are repeating the debunked creationist lie that mutations can only reduce information, never increase it. However, this is simply untrue, and one of the easier-to-discredit creationist claims. Look:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html - msundman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@covertbadger
> > Then it should be easy for you to provide us with several indisputable
> > examples, so why don't you?
>
> My pleasure:
Great!
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
That's called "elephant hurling". I've read many books on these subjects, but I'm not going to read one now on demand. But if you pick out some part I can try to comment on it.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
These are straw-men. No serious creationist claims that no new species have formed. In fact, creationists claim the opposite. They claim for example that only one "dog kind" was on the ark, and from it arose all the canine species we have today, including the wolf and the domestic dogs.
> > Not so. That distinction is the same as the distinction between a ball rolling
> > downhill and one running uphill. What has been shown are examples of
> > degeneration, but "macro" evolution assumes the opposite.
>
> Your ball analogy is utterly irrelevant, no matter how many times you repeat it
> on this thread.
OK, then show me why.
> I assume by 'degeneration' you are repeating the debunked creationist lie that
> mutations can only reduce information, never increase it.
No, that completely depends on the definition of "information". If you use the common definition by Shannon then that's just entropy or improbability.
What I'm saying is that the changes that are observed tend to go only one way. If NDT was true then we should see a ***** of changes that support the evolving of new novel structures, but in reality we only have a dozen widely disputed examples. The rest of the "evolving" we observe, which is a lot, is either going downhill or sideways, striving to stay at local maximums (which shift a little when the environment changes).
> However, this is simply untrue, and one of the easier-to-discredit creationist
> claims. Look:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
The only real points (i.e., non-straw-men) there are 1c and 1d.
1c) This boils down to James R. Knox conclusion: "From these results, it seems likely that the beta–lactamase evolved from an enzyme with DD-peptidase activity." Even if we ignore that Knox seems to assume that evolution has happened and is more interested in 'how' instead of 'if', the "seems likely" is far from your indirect claim of indisputability.
1d) http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
So, I eagerly wait for those indisputable evidences you'll show us. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"A few thousand years of human existence is a dustspeck compared to the time it takes for species to evolve."
For natural selection yes, but for intelligent (if you could call it that) breeding and culling the answer is... No.
Take dogs for example. In the past 100 years or so we've basically bred them into certain groups not to mention cows and other things for traits of our choosing.
Of course this happens a bit in humans depending on societal customs. Instead of finding a mate based of whatever person we've happen to found at the time and are able to outrun the lions, we tend to look for mates with particular traits.
Hence, humans with traits that are undesirable are more unlikley to breed or at least with people without similar genetic traits. Now this is done with "intelligence" rather than evolution or emergence... You know... Evolving because we just happened to survive mutations.
This is not saying that we are mutating at a faster rate, but we are selecting our desirable genes at a faster pace than old mother nature (designer children and 1936 German-era government sponsored eugenics programs s non-withstanding). - a1programmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/truthlucy.pdf
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@msundman
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
> That's called "elephant hurling". I've read many books on these subjects, but I'm not going > to read one now on demand. But if you pick out some part I can try to comment on it.
I see. So you ask for examples, I provide them, and you can't be bothered to read them. Don't give me any crap about elephant hurling - there's a hyperlinked contents section right there at that link which will enable you to jump directly to the section on speciation.
> No serious creationist claims that no new species have formed.
A remarkable claim in the face of the hundreds of posts disputing speciation on digg every time this topic comes up. But let's roll with it for a moment, and assume that you are calling all the other creationists on digg idiots (something we can both agree on) - do my eye deceive me, or is creationism back-pedalling yet again? First we were told god made us in his own image, then we were told that obviously MICROevolution happens, certainly, but not MACROevolution. Now, it seems that macroevolution is accepted, and some new and even less relevant island of insanity is being vigorously defended.
>> Your ball analogy is utterly irrelevant, no matter how many times you repeat it
>> on this thread.
>
> OK, then show me why.
Because a ball rolling uphill of its own accord is a violation of established natural laws. Evolutionary theory is not a violation of natural law, it IS natural law.
> What I'm saying is that the changes that are observed tend to go only one way.
So, it now seems that having been forced to accept macroevolution after all, creationists have now created 'directions' and demand evidence that the changes can go in more than 'one way', and somehow this is different from the discredited argument about new information. This is ***** ridiculous. First the arbitrary micro and macro divisions; now you're creating sub-divisions within macroevolution. Whatever next?
> If NDT was true then we should see a ***** of changes that support the evolving
> of new novel structures
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
> 1d) http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
Debunked. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html - msundman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@covertbadger
> > That's called "elephant hurling". I've read many books on these subjects, but
> > I'm not going to read one now on demand. But if you pick out some part I can
> > try to comment on it.
>
> I see. So you ask for examples, I provide them, and you can't be bothered to
> read them. Don't give me any crap about elephant hurling - there's a
> hyperlinked contents section right there at that link which will enable you to
> jump directly to the section on speciation.
I've already told you that the issue of speciation is a straw-man. Everyone familiar with origins theories knows that. Why won't you get it?
> > No serious creationist claims that no new species have formed.
>
> A remarkable claim in the face of the hundreds of posts disputing speciation
> on digg every time this topic comes up. But let's roll with it for a moment, and
> assume that you are calling all the other creationists on digg idiots
They are not serious creationists, just as all those mindless, rambling "evolutionists" that wouldn't know the difference between lamarckism and NDT aren't serious evolutionists.
> do my eye deceive me, or is creationism back-pedalling yet again?
That'd be the eye (or mind) deceiving you.
> First we were told god made us in his own image, then we were told that
> obviously MICROevolution happens, certainly, but not MACROevolution. Now,
> it seems that macroevolution is accepted, and some new and even less
> relevant island of insanity is being vigorously defended.
Huh? "Micro" evolution has always happened. Variation and natural selection were known long before Darwin's The Origin of Species. In fact, Darwin read about natural selection in articles, by the creationist Edward Blyth, that were written some 24 years before The Origin of Species was published.
I can understand your confusion as the terms "micro" and "macro" in this context are very misleading since the difference isn't quantitative but qualitative. E.g., AiG has recommended not to use these terms, precisely because of this.
> > > Your ball analogy is utterly irrelevant, no matter how many times you
> > > repeat it on this thread.
> >
> > OK, then show me why.
>
> Because a ball rolling uphill of its own accord is a violation of established
> natural laws. Evolutionary theory is not a violation of natural law,
You missed the point. The analogy was that proving that a ball can roll downhill doesn't mean that it's proved that it can run uphill. Sure there may be other proofs that shows that it's impossible for it to roll uphill more than it has already rolled downhill, but that's irrelevant here.
> it IS natural law.
Try repeating it a few times and maybe it'll become true.
> So, it now seems that having been forced to accept macroevolution after all,
No such thing has happened.
> creationists have now created 'directions' and demand evidence that the
> changes can go in more than 'one way',
Yes, stuff can break down and be built up. If this is all new to you then maybe you should do some basic research before throwing around insults.
> and somehow this is different from the discredited argument about new
> information.
Again, you are using an ambiguous word as if it wasn't. See Behe or Gitt for the definition of information they use. (And try to not get stuck in the misinterpretations and misrepresentations the TO people present about it.)
> > If NDT was true then we should see a ***** of changes that support the
> > evolving of new novel structures
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
Again only a few disputable examples, when my whole point was that there should be a ***** of them. There should be so many that biology textbooks wouldn't have to contain faked embryo-homology pictures, or pictures of moths manually glued to trees, or a bunch of examples of obvious degeneration when trying to prove the opposite.
At least one of the papers referenced on that page, namely the one about the nylon bug, is about change that happens in a way that is not typical of NDT, and certainly can't be said to be responsible for it in any but a few cases.
> > 1d) http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
>
> Debunked. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
The "debunking" more or less ignores the whole point, which was that this is not goo-to-you evolution happening. However, if the way that this happens in was much more common it might actually be a viable mechanism for evolution.
See here, for example:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/348
and especially here (linked to from the page of the link above):
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=345072&action=stream&blobtype=pdf
Very interesting. Too bad we don't see more of this action.
- mickaloha, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28I wonder if they will kick me out when I am laughing at all of the exhibits?
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Only if you are wearing an FSM tee shirt.
- Araya213, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Or a devil suit, complete with horns and a tail!
- MyNameIsDave, on 10/12/2007, -19/+0What is everyone afraid of? Competition is a good thing.
@shefftim: It could also be argued that creationists also go through some amazing mental contortions to counter/incorporate/shoehorn their theory in things that just aren’t based in fact.
Anyway, this doesn't seem like the correct forum for this discussion anyway...- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Ah, ok I contest that the Pilgrims were Puritans. They were Jews. I'm going to use my political influence to get this taught as an "alternative theory of colonization", get warnings printed in textbooks that mention that the Pilgrims were Puritans, and set up museums showing the Jewish Pilgrims' culture.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@Koopa:
Teach the controversy!
Also, I think we should set up a museum that tells how the Holocaust never happened and how it's all a Jewish plot. If people don't allow me to teach my theory in schools, I'll claim that I'm being censored by the liberals. If people on Digg call me an idiot, I'll whine about how they're unable to refute my facts are just closed-minded. After all, "regardless of your belief, a conventional history exhibit is just as much a wild guess as a Holocaust-denial exhibit. Neither can be proved as history."
[/sarcasm]
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Kentucky is a museum of stupidity anyway.
- KillaGoat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Except for Louisville, you should visit it sometime. It's a stronghold of goodness
- chiller2002, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Louisville rarely considers itself actually part of Kentucky.
- kkaabboomm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6what about lexington, the horse capital of the world? i think by kentucky you mean ***** hill country, bordering west virginia....
- nargilamonster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Wow...I thought this was fake,
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html
and it was!
But now it's real bitches!!- BiggPa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"2nd Place [Middle School Level]: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker."
excellent - Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Honorable Mention:
"Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False" - Paul Sanborn (grade 4)
Holy *****! Stop the presses! Cartoon that was once seen as "the Devil" now proves God does exist! - Drealoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Come on guys, it's satire. Cleverly disguised, but satire none the less.
- Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was wondering if this was satire because it seems to be too good to be true. The sites are so poorly constructed and filled with seemingly endless content that I almost think it's real. If this is satire it will be the first time I've ever been fooled by a joke on the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBJECTIVE:_Christian_Ministries
Guess I was fooled. :-)
- BiggPa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"2nd Place [Middle School Level]: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
- Scopitone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21I weep for the future.
- suomi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I hope the is a section dedicated to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Oh - someone beat me to the punch... darn.- astatine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"As an online discussion of Intelligent Design grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving gravity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster approaches one"
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20okay, I think $25 million is the most amount of money spent on not admitting you're wrong.
- Araya213, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Ummmm, Iraq?
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sorry - I meant to qualify that as "most money spent on a building and/or in Kentucky"
- ursamajor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Once again we see why KY is often considered the intellectual center of the universe.
- walterd93, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This is absolute *****. Suddenly, everything magically came to be, and an invisible person lives in the clouds and has 6,500,000,000 eyes to watch every human...sounds odd.
- chabuhi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+513,000,000,000 eyes ...
just sayin'
- chabuhi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+513,000,000,000 eyes ...
- jarvuss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I like the last line "Americans just aren't gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish." I want to go just so I can see how gullible I have been during my life. Are they going to tell me the earth is flat, because science has pretty much pwnd that theory.
- MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12arent museums meant to be about facts?
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yes. And science is about trying to logically explain facts and then testing those explanations. Too bad creationism merely attributes everything to some ineffable God and his magic rather than trying to explain anything.
Hmm. It seems that the Creation Museum is just as honest as Creation "Science".
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yes. And science is about trying to logically explain facts and then testing those explanations. Too bad creationism merely attributes everything to some ineffable God and his magic rather than trying to explain anything.
- ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4i could bother to write up a well thought out comment, but why bother, apparently digg is trolled by people who don't believe in creationism, and thus make effort to insult it
now, while I myself believe in evolution, this thread reminds me of the Mormon article the other day, and once again- diggers criticizing other peoples beliefs.
Seriously, just because you don't agree with someones opinion is no reason to insult them- vhcougar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2thank you.
different beliefs are fine. arguments are fine. but almost all of the posts here are childish, stupid insults that do not help to promote open minds or thinking for one's self. - simX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It's not about disagreeing with someone else's opinion/beliefs. It's about disagreeing with the $25 million spent into creating this museum that just fosters ignorance in science and in rationality. It's about being frustrated with the state of education in this country. It's about weeping for the future of humanity when the world's last remaining "superpower" is so ridiculously stupid that we have to have debates on things like evolution and global warming, when there is clear evidence to support both. We've even used the theory of evolution in creating medical advances like vaccines! And yet, there are still people out there who support building $25 million museums to contradict everything that our society has accomplished technologically and scientifically.
If you want to believe in god, that's fine by me, and I'm not going to be one to tell you not to do that. But when you wield that belief as a weapon to hinder scientific knowledge, it seriously pisses people off. Why is it not sufficient to believe in god and value all that he created on earth by legitimately trying to understand it? Why do religious texts need to be heralded as literal accuracies to god's creation? Why does religion so often fly in the face of science when there's nothing stopping the two from co-existing?
THAT'S why people get angry, and some resort to childish insults, because it seems there's no way to combat this ridiculous assault. - Zique, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4But the problem here isn't that we disagree in opinions - the problem is that we disagree on simple facts. Creationists often cite creatonism as their belief, and that exactly is the point of the criticism; with the fossils, high tech dating methods, astronomical evidence of the structure of the universe, and whatever I'm forgetting - it isn't a matter of belief.
- ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"t's not about disagreeing with someone else's opinion/beliefs. It's about disagreeing with the $25 million spent into creating this museum"
i totally agree with that- but read every comment above this one and tell me how many are actually about the cost - CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@ImTheDarkcyde
You have it exactly backwards. Digg isn't trolled by people who don't believe in creationism, it's trolled by people who do believe in creationism. If creationists would either educate themselves or stop using products of the science they so hate, we wouldn't need this debate. Yet they refuse to do either, and so we are stuck refuting the same crap over and over and over: "the Flood carved the Grand Canyon", "the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution", "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", "there are no transitional fossils", etc.
Even the creationists' hypocracy might not be so bad if they didn't try to force their beliefs on children through public schools. But they are insistent--just check out the Kansas board of education today or the Dover trial last year. Why can't they just push their religious beliefs in church? Why do they have to undermine the science education of my kids as well?
I think you can see that frustration with these people is well justified. - abbott75, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1"or stop using products of the science they so hate"
WE DON'T HATE SCIENCE! I am perfectly happy to allow science in my life, i'm using a computer now, but it is my choice to believe in a God. Religious people don't verbally attack Evolutionists or call them 'retarded' when they can't argue in a civilized manner. Please, if we are going to have a real debate on the topic than by all means do it, but without the name-calling, lies and childishness.
Thank you. - CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@abbott75
If creationists don't hate science, then why are they perfectly willing to reject scientific evidence whenever it contradicts their beliefs? If creationists don't hate science, then why are they so hell-bent on undermining science education? Hell, let's just tally the *fields* of science that YECists reject, not based on facts, but based on faith:
- Biology
- Geology
- Astronomy
- Cosmology
- Archeology
- Paleontology
It doesn't get much more anti-science than that. Using the products of science isn't a sign that they accept science, it's a sign of hypocrisy.
"Religious people don't verbally attack Evolutionists or call them 'retarded' when they can't argue in a civilized manner."
In the first place, religious people in general tend to be evolutionists themselves. It's a subset of religious people, creationists, who do attack evolutionists.
Secondly, they don't call evolutionists 'retarded.' They do call evolutionists, 'Nazis', 'baby-killers', 'enemies of God', and very often say, either implicitly or explicitly, that scientists are either incompetent or dishonest or in league with Satan for not believing in creationism.
Before you pluck the speck out of my eye, remove the plank from yours. - olegk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6We criticize the stupidity. We don't cherrypick stupid religions. All of them are. Be it creationism, mormons, scientoliogy, christianity or islam.
- msundman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1@CopperFalcon
"If creationists don't hate science, then why are they perfectly willing to reject scientific evidence whenever it contradicts their beliefs?"
They don't reject any evidence. They might reject some particular interpretation of some evidence, but not the evidence itself.
"If creationists don't hate science, then why are they so hell-bent on undermining science education?"
They are not. But maybe you can answer why the secular humanist fundamentalists are so hell-bent on making it *illegal* to criticize neo-darwinism even indirectly in schools?
"let's just tally the *fields* of science that YECists reject, not based on facts, but based on faith:
- Biology
- Geology
- Astronomy
- Cosmology
- Archeology
- Paleontology"
That's a BS statement if I ever saw one. In fact, that weren't all those fields laid down by YECers, such as Newton, Pascal, Copernicus, Pasteur, Mendel, Linnaeus, etc.? - dorkafork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"That's a BS statement if I ever saw one. In fact, that weren't all those fields laid down by YECers, such as Newton, Pascal, Copernicus, Pasteur, Mendel, Linnaeus, etc.?"
So what? First of all, science isn't like religion, it doesn't have inerrable prophets. Second, only two of them were alive during the time Darwin published his ideas, and all of them died before the modern synthesis of evolution. Third, Newton practiced alchemy and most likely astrology. Copernicus didn't know that objects fall at the same rate. Mendel didn't know the structure of DNA. None of them knew Pluto existed. That's because they didn't live to see those scientific discoveries. Modern day creationists have no such excuse for their ignorance. - CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dorkafork brings up a good point. In many ways, I (and many people now living) is now less ignorant than even Newton. This is not because we're smarter than him, but because we have the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge. So for us to dispute some piece of knowledge that we now have because Newton didn't believe it himself (because he died before some crucial experiment) is completely asinine.
What creationists who make this argument miss is that you can do science without having all the facts (indeed, this is WHY we do science), but you cannot do science by arbitrarily denying facts. - msundman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0You both miss my point that YECists don't reject these (or any) fields of science.
- vhcougar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2thank you.
- DirtMcGirt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The caption under the photo says archaeologists but they are clearly digging up dinosaur bones making them a paleontologist, that should say something about how much MS NBC knows.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I wonder what ticket prices will be
- nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11$6.66
- olegk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8your soul
- techmonkey4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Your sense of reasoning and logic.
- crimsonalucard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9twenty five million for that piece of *****? Burning the cash would be a better solution.
- kepeli999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Hail Xenu!
- ElJefeGrande, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Obviously no one is changing anybody else's opinions here... back to tech stories for me.
- r3becca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"An exhibit depicting two archaeologists coming to very different conclusions while unearthing the same skeleton is part of what will become the Creation Museum, now under construction."
.....
HUH?
If i were an archaeologist i would be offended by that. - BarleyWind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12If Adam and Eve had audited their negative engrams then the dinosaurs never would have gone extinct.
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Oh thank god that wasn't funded by tax payer money!!! I would have had to kill someone!
- ogletree, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5Regardless of your belief, an evolution exhibit is just as much a wild guess as a creationist exhibit. Neither can be proved as science. They are both theories. Evolution is an unproved theory that a lot of people hold on to like a religion. Schools should not treat it as fact. I don’t think schools should teach any theory as fact. The general public misunderstands evolution. Very few people are up to date on the actual current science of it. It is taught like a religion in schools. People are brainwashed into thinking that it is fact and anyone who disagrees has a lower than average IQ or retarded as some have put it.
- aprice2704, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You are utterly ignorant and wrong. Evolution has (literally) mountains of hard evidence to back it up.
- simX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Please campaign to eliminate the "theory" of gravity from schools as well. That's as much a "theory" as evolution is.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5aprice...evolution has amount of assumptions substituted as evidence.
- suomi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@ogletree - where do I start?
Did you actually go to school? Are you, by any chance, still at school? Your comments show a deeply disturbing lack of, well, anything... - Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Wow, I'm always amazed at the amount of hatred that one side can spew at the other. Why are you all being so defensive?
Evolution, which is something I personally believe to be true, is in fact, a theory. Gravity, is not a theory. It is a proven force that is now apart of a bedrock of physical science. Evolution still has many holes that are yet unexplained, such as if everything evolved from something else, where did the initial organism come from? True, it makes sense and is a working theory, but to jump to the conclusion that it's 100% correct while there's much unproven is purely asinine. Stop tearing other people down simply because they don't follow your exact train of thought. - GeekStarPilot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ogletree
I strongly suggest that you read the judgment in the case Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board Case (http://www.kcfs.org/krebs/KS-Science-Ed_ID_Law/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf) and then honestly tell me what you think of the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism and intelligent design.
Also in science it IS NOT possible to PROVE anything as fact. It is only possible DISPROVE a hypothesis or series of hypotheses as not being supported by the evidence or experiment.
At this stage all of the theories connected to the wide range of areas of study that generally fall under the umbrella of "evolution" are the best explanation we have for the empirical evidence using scientifically valid and logically sound experiments or analysis.
If you can point me to scientifically valid and logically sound experiments or analysis that does not disprove the theories related to creationism I (and I would assume many other scientists) would be very happy to see them so please let us know.
I personally would be happy for creationism to be introduced as an possible alternate explanation to the theory of evolution BUT ONLY if the claims, evidence and conclusions made by so-called creation scientists are tested to the same high scientifically rigorously standards as that of the evolutionary scientists. In that way students would be able to make an intelligent assessment of which "theory" best explains the evidence.
I also ask you this: Why is it that there are no (or virtually no - I a little vague on the exact numbers because it has been a little while since I have read the Dover judgment) peer reviewed papers submitted to relevant and respected conferences or journals?
I would be interested to read your reply.
Finally, I am happy for you to believe what you want but do not impose your beliefs on others (especially children and young adults who may not know enough to challenge you) unless you can back it up with logically valid arguments and scientifically testable hypotheses. - msundman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@GeekStarPilot
"If you can point me to scientifically valid and logically sound experiments or analysis that does not disprove the theories related to creationism I (and I would assume many other scientists) would be very happy to see them so please let us know."
Go to a library that has TJ and read a few issues? Or subscribe to it yourself for a while: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/ - GeekStarPilot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@msundman
I went to the web site of the TJ publication as you suggested thinking that I might find some interesting research. When I started to review the table of content of some of the recent articles I realize that you must have misread my suggestion. I specifically made reference to "scientifically valid and logically sound experiments or analysis" I also made reference to the appearance of (or more specifically lack of appearance of papers) on creationism-related "recearch" in "peer reviewed" scientific journals.
I was disappointed to find that table of contents of the 3 or 4 TJ editions I looked at seems only to be interested in articles that are classified as "perspective" or "opinion" or "letters to the editor".
Once again if you can point me in the direction of respected scientific journals that contain peer reviewed scientific papers on the any aspect of creationism I would be more than happy to read them. - msundman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@GeekStarPilot
> I specifically made reference to "scientifically valid and logically
> sound experiments or analysis"
Yes. AFAIK all of them has that. Look again.
> I also made reference to the appearance of (or more specifically
> lack of appearance of papers) on creationism-related "recearch"
> in "peer reviewed" scientific journals.
TJ *is* a peer reviewed scientific journal.
> I was disappointed to find that table of contents of the 3 or 4 TJ
> editions I looked at seems only to be interested in articles that
> are classified as "perspective" or "opinion" or "letters to the editor".
Then you must be blind. Each issue contain several full papers.
> Once again if you can point me in the direction of respected
> scientific journals that contain peer reviewed scientific papers
> on the any aspect of creationism I would be more than happy
> to read them.
I suspect you know fully well that most secular scientific journals refuse to touch papers that even vaguely hints at design or creation. Time and again we've heard about cases where some journal even refuse to send it peer review when they realize that the author is a creationist. Or he doesn't even have to be a creationist, it may be enough that he shows skepticism towards NDT. Here is some typical correspondence, and this guy isn't even a creationist: http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
- JoeyDeacon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What a waste of money though it might be a fun theme park for simple fat folk who don't get out much and beleive in magic.
When is the world going to wake up to the fact that the earth is nothing more than a petting zoo for our superior alien overlords. They put us here and then they sat back truman show styley to watch us fight and *****. Its pretty obvious to me really. - CodyZ, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Right now I'm finishing up a degree in physical anthropology/human paleontology (basically human evolution), so I'll try to sum this up as quickly as I can.
First, people need to separate "evolution" from "human evolution."
Evolution is real observable process that happens over time. As life forms encounter environmental pressures, those that are best adapted to the environment survive and are able to reproduce. Slowly over time the genes of these organisms are passed on, become more dominant in the gene pool, and if the genes are selective enough...may even change the whole species.
If you look around the world, you'll find most creatures are uniquely adapted for survival in their environment, this is because the organisms that were best adapted to the environment were able to survive, reproduce and pass on their genes.
Human Evolution is the theory that humans evolved from the African Great Apes. Which we did. We can trace back much of human anatomy to its ape origins. For example, the human hand has elongated fingers and opposable thumbs (perfect for gripping tree branches). Combine this with the scapula (your collar bone, which only primates have), separates the shoulder from the chest to allow arm movement in almost any direction, and in tandem with the full arm movement, allows you to swing and hang from branch to branch just like many other primates, and humans ape-ancestors.
Their is just too much stuff to list, I think I'll stop there, whether or not I made my point I'm not sure...Just remember that there's a reason you can do a pull-up and your dog can't. It has nothing to do with god, and everything to do with evolution.- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Your first topic on evolution of natural selection is not really evolution. Traits from the gene pool are passed down to the more domiant species of that environment, but those traits are already found in the gene pool in the first place. What I am trying to say is nothing new is created from natural selection but more dominat traits in the vast variety of each species/kind of gene pool emerges. So it is like if there is a variation of differnt types of snakes that live in an environment. There are those that adapt better to heat, some to cold air, some to less ocygen....Now lets say the environment that all the snakes live in is hot with plenty of oxygen. Now we see snakes that can handle the heat and plenty of oxygen survive. Thier specific traits iof tolerance to this sort of environment is passed down from generation to generation. This doesnt createa new species but a variation of its ancestors. The gene pool doesnt add to itself but picks aprt certain traits that will keep a select group of animals survive in that environment.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Also, with the human evolution evidence. I would like to point out that you are giving interpreted evidence which means you assume that our bone features can be traced back to ape origins. yes it is true that about 98% of our dna is simialr to apes, but that 2% in the dna is a HUGE difference because our dna is so vast that scientists have not been able to decode the whole human dna yet.
- nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@scoot87
"Now lets say the environment that all the snakes live in is hot with plenty of oxygen. Now we see snakes that can handle the heat and plenty of oxygen survive."
While we are on the subject of evolution and snakes, maybe you would care to explain why Boas and Pythons have vestigal limb structures and why evolving from a creature with four limbs to a form without them does not constitute significant physical change. - coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"but those traits are already found in the gene pool in the first place"
No they are not. A trait is typically the result of a particular combination of multiple genes, and out of the effectively infinite combinations possible, only some will emerge (and existing strong ones will remain), yet minor mutations and variations occur with every generation, with little apparent consequence. It's entirely possible for a 3-armed person to be born in a population of only 2-armed people. Such major mutations will rarely result in a major shift in the population's average arm count in the absence of evolutionary pressure, such as some alien landing and declaring "I'm going to kill anyone that can't catch these 3 balls"...
"yes it is true that about 98% of our dna is simialr to apes, but that 2% in the dna is a HUGE difference because our dna is so vast that scientists have not been able to decode the whole human dna yet"
So, the statement by the Human Genome Project that they completed decoding it in 2003 was a fabrication? http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml Quite a few other organisms have had their DNA mapped now too.
- noeljohnhoward, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Cool,
they should have their meuseum.
That dosnt make the bible any less symbolic to me!- noeljohnhoward, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Meaning,
NOT a reliable source of history, what-so-ever.
You cant take the bible literally.
with that in mind, it could actually be enjoyable
- noeljohnhoward, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Meaning,
- kibbled, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I can't argue point by point with a creationist but I will say this. Usually creationists are free marketers and be live in the invisible hand of the market to set all things right but they don't believe in the invisible hand of evolution. I find this interesting
Millions of scientists over thousands of years have been collecting, analyzing and interpreting the world around us. In the past 200 years scientists have had to follow strict guide lines and be subjected to peer review before something can be considered fact. Even then it may be disproved.
I am personally going to believe the scientific method then some guy who writes a book that is not subjected to the same rigorous standards. - Menace1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Evolution, Creationism, whatever does it really matter? Humans are so pathetic that they can't just accept the fact that they're here and alive. No that's not good enough. There always has to be an answer to WHY and HOW. Most people just can't cope with the idea that the earth could be billions of years old and somehow whether it be an act of God or just some coincidence, man came into existence. When it comes right down to it, I JUST DON'T GIVE A *****. I was born into a very religious family in Northern Kentucky, very to close where that crazy ass museum is being built. During my first 18 years I was forced to go to private schools and church every week I can honestly say I was never convinced that the Earth was created in a few thousand years. The same goes for evolution, though a semi-convincing argument, to me at least, it is still just a theory. Everyone seems to overlook that word. The "Theory" of Evolution is not fact at all hence the word theory in front of it. Either way which ever you choose whether evolution or creationism you need this little thing called faith. The answers are not always there and on this particular topic the true answer may never be there, all I know for sure is bitching and arguing with each other about two ideas that can't be proven is pretty ***** stupid. That's all I have to say about that. As for anyone who wants to hate on Kentucky, be my guest, I hate it here.
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"it is still just a theory. Everyone seems to overlook that word."
No, it's just that most other people understand what it means in this context, which you obviously don't. I'll give you a clue - it's also a theory that the earth orbits the sun. Gravity is a theory. Evolution has the same status as these other theories.
Really, I didn't think anyone bothered with the "but it's only a theory!" argument any more, since it just makes a fool of whoever uses it. - paulrus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I'm glad there's at least one reasonable argument here.
The interesting thing about coal and diamonds that I find is the fact that even though they're thought to be millions or billions of years old, they still have carbon 14 in them - which is supposed to decay after several thousands of years. How did carbon 14 get into diamonds if they're millions of years old? Scientists never actually tested coal and diamonds because they said it was impossible for carbon 14 to be in them - yet when scientists finally tested them, carbon 14 was there.
I think that people should at least get to hear all sides rather than hearing one side screaming "you either believe what I say you're a F*#KING RETARD!!!!!" To me that seems a lot more narrow minded than giving people the opportunity to decide for themselves. - covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@paulrus
"Scientists never actually tested coal and diamonds because they said it was impossible for carbon 14 to be in them".
Do you have any source for that claim, or are you just regurgitating something that somebody else told you? I suspect the latter.
Plus, if you did some basic research before putting your foot in your mouth, you might have discovered that there are a number of hypotheses for the existence of carbon 14 in coal. The leading theory is that the carbon 14 wasn't there when the coal was formed; instead it is being continually produced by the decay of uranium-thorium, so the carbon 14 you find in a piece of coal is no older than its half-life would allow, and therefore there is no inconsistency (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html). But of course you already knew all this, having learned to think for yourself, and this was just a troll.
Right?
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"it is still just a theory. Everyone seems to overlook that word."
- archerx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13What a complete waste of 25 million dollars! I'm catholic and i find creationism completely stupid (I was really good in biology....) it's just so damn illogical...
Why does stupidity get rewarded so often in this god forsaken world?- olegk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1haha :) catholic criticizing creationism... oh the irony
- aMeta4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8TO DO:
* shake head in disbelief
* wipe ass with Holy Bible (any version)
* burn flag (any country)
* get on with life and read next article
Ahhhh.....I feel much better :) - jggr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3If you can categorically say one side or the other is absolutely right, then you're not thinking with a scientific mind. We really don't have enough evidence to support either side. Now some of the creationist ideas and claims are a little far fetched (OK, a lot... but let's be civil), but then there are also some leaps of faith involved in evolution as well.
As Plato once said, the wisest man is he who can admit he knows nothing.
Oh, and if your faith is so week, that you set aside logic and reasoning to fit your view of God and creation with a book that has been translated from a language long dead, then you're doing your God a disservice. Remember folks, I'd don't think God would care that you believe in a book (even if it was inspired by God), the only thing I imagine God cares about is believing in Him and doing right by Him. So quit assuming that your tiny insignificant human brain could fully comprehend God or His thoughts.
/Not Religious... I just know I know nothing.
//Also, I'd love to go to this museum, just to see what these folks are attempting to pass off as 'science'.
///And in closing... To sum up.... Creationism is not true science.... But neither does evolution imply that there is no 'Intelligent Designer'.- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Creationism is not true science.... But neither does evolution imply that there is no 'Intelligent Designer'."
Yes, it does. Creationism's central tenet is that certain features (like the eye) are too complex to have evolved. There is no common ground between creationism and evolutionary theory - if one is right, then the other is flat out wrong, no exceptions. Evolution is scientifically proved and observed, therefore creationism is false. QED. - jggr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@covertbadger:
"There is no common ground between creationism and evolutionary theory - if one is right, then the other is flat out wrong, no exceptions. Evolution is scientifically proved and observed, therefore creationism is false. QED."
Wow. I sure wish I knew everything there was to know about the universe. Are you telling me that it's not possible for the supposed supreme being of the universe couldn't have created using evolution? Creationism isn't true science, I can't deny that. But evolution doesn't negate the possibility of an Intelligent Designer. - covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jggr
"But evolution doesn't negate the possibility of an Intelligent Designer."
Yes. It. Does.
If something is designed, then it hasn't evolved. You only need a basic grasp of the dictionary definitions of the words 'evolve' and 'design' to see that. Creationism EXPLICITLY argues that certain things (like eyes) cannot have possibly evolved. Proponents of I.D. do not allow the possibility of evolution and creationism existing side-by-side - unfortunately, since there is a mountain of supporting evidence and observation for evolution, they're SOL.
What evolution DOESN'T negate is the possibility of some godlike being causing the Big Bang (or whatever theory you happen to have for the beginning of the universe), but then that has nothing to do with evolution anyway, it's cosmology. But trying to argue that I.D and evolution can coexist demonstrates a lack of understanding of one or both sides of the argument. - Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Evolution is scientifically proved and observed, therefore creationism is false."
Oh? If everything evolved from something else, where did the first organism come from?
I believe that evolution is closer to the truth than creationism, but it still only a theory. To hold onto it as though it's pure 100% undisputable fact requires just as much faith as those who believe in creationism. - covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Egoist
"Oh? If everything evolved from something else, where did the first organism come from?"
What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. Please try to stay on topic. Evolution says nothing at all about where the first organism came from.
"I believe that evolution is closer to the truth than creationism, but it still only a theory."
So is the earth orbiting the sun. So is gravity. I really thought this deliberate misunderstanding of the word 'theory' in this context had died a death, but no; that's twice now it's come up in this thread alone. I despair, I really do. - jggr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@covertbadger:
"If something is designed, then it hasn't evolved."
Hmmm.. I seem to remember hearing a bunch a while ago about software that will update itself after testing and continue to do so until the end goal was met. Kind of like an electronic evolution. There was an initial designer there, but the end product has evolved from the original. Evolution is a method, not an absolute.
Your faith in evolution is as disturbing to me as the creationists faith in a book. You have offered no evidence to support the claim that evolution denies the existence of a designer. All you can say is that, since one is wrong the other is right. That's just poor reasoning.
Note: I do believe that evolution occurs. Too much evidence to just outright say it's not true. But I'm tired of those who continue to use evolution as an anti-religious stance. - covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@jggr
"Hmmm.. I seem to remember hearing a bunch a while ago about software that will update itself after testing and continue to do so until the end goal was met. Kind of like an electronic evolution. There was an initial designer there, but the end product has evolved from the original. Evolution is a method, not an absolute."
If you stopped ducking the point I'm making, we'd stop going round in circles. Here, let me repeat it for you (for the third time):
Creationism EXPLICITLY argues that certain things (like eyes) cannot have possibly evolved. Proponents of I.D. do not allow the possibility of evolution and creationism existing side-by-side.
Creationism does NOT claim that there was an 'initial designer' who created organisms that evolved over time. It directly claims that the eyeball cannot have evolved, therefore it must have been designed, EXACTLY as it is now. It argues that complex things were invented from scratch, and that evolution cannot possibly account for complexity. There is no middle ground. If creationism is right, then we were all created precisely as we are now and evolution is completely wrong. If evolutionism is correct, then we evolved things like eyes, and creationism is flat out wrong.
If you cannot see why this means evolution and creationism are utterly incompatible, then I can help you no further. At the very least, I'd suggest you read up a bit on creationism to find out why your 'initial designer' theory is as much at odds with creationism as evolution itself.
- covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Creationism is not true science.... But neither does evolution imply that there is no 'Intelligent Designer'."
- paulrus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4I love how on Digg you guys want to have total freedom, and yet when something gets posted that you disagree with you can't have a rational argument, you have to resort to childish name calling.
I don't see creation scientists running around posting about how "retarded" evolutionists are. If you want digg to be a place for open ideas, at least act like grown ups and be respectful.
How about showing some class for once? So you disagree with someone. If you disagree with your boss over something do you start screaming "your an F&*KING RETARD!!!!" at work? Are you guys seriously that childish?- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11If you haven't seen creationists running around name-calling, then you're either blind or deliberately ignorant.
Who is it that tries to link a certain science and Hitler to show that science is somehow incorrect?
Who is it that tries to say that a certain science provides no moral framework and thus promotes evil and is therefore incorrect?
Who is it that tries to link a certain science and the Columbine shootings to show that science is incorrect?
And who is it that repeats these craptacular arguments even after they've been shown to be fallacious? - lexa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I had to dig you down for using the term 'creation scientists'. sorry.
- msundman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@CopperFalcon
"Who is it that tries to link a certain science and Hitler to show that science is somehow incorrect?
Who is it that tries to say that a certain science provides no moral framework and thus promotes evil and is therefore incorrect?
Who is it that tries to link a certain science and the Columbine shootings to show that science is incorrect?"
The only thing fallacious is the "...and is therefore incorrect" part in all of those arguments. However, those arguments (without the last part) are valid when discussing whether it matters what people think about the question of origins. But you are perfectly correct in that a negative consequence doesn't prove, or even vaguely indicate, incorrectness.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11If you haven't seen creationists running around name-calling, then you're either blind or deliberately ignorant.
- ronin688, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@niffer
I'm a committed life-long atheist, but I had a professor in college that taught Geology (my minor).
I ended up having several classes with him over the course of my time in college and I came to know him well as a VERY dedicated Christian. He was deeply religious, and of course we questioned how he could be both Christian and a Geologist (actually paleobotanist) and he gave the exact reasoning that you just did. The "7 Days" story in genesis was a metaphor for the eons that it took to form and evolove the human race.
I personally don't believe that god exists, but it seems to me that it would be very easy to think of everything from the big bang to the evolution of humans as being part of god's plan. Just seems like it would be easier to adapt to the science then to fight it. I don't see how it would detract from religious belief in any way to believe in evolution.- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You are quite right. Science isn't opposed to religion in general, it's a particular group of religious people with a minority interpretation of their holy book who are opposed to science.
- swampman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0"I'm a committed life-long atheist..." "I personally don't believe that god exists..."
i hate to break it to you. if you don't believe that God exists, that doesn't make you an atheist, but an agnostic. in order to be an atheist, you have to "know" that God doesn't exists. atheism as a system defeats its self. atheism, comes from the greek a (alpha the negative) and theos (God). it basically says there is no God. it doesn't say that "i don't believe that there is no God," but "i know there is no God." you are essentially saying i have infinite knowledge to say that there is no one in the universe with infinite knowledge. agnostic, in the greek, means a (alpha the negative) and gnosto (knowledge). this is saying "one who doesn't know."
you may catch what i am trying to say, but others won't. they can go ahead and start digging me down... - CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@swampman
I'm digging you down because you are not simply incorrect, but outright lying. You are trying to re-define 'atheism' to your taste for no other reason than so you can attack atheists better.
Basically, 'theists' believe in one or more deities. 'Atheists' do not believe in deities. That's it. There is strong atheism (believes there are no gods) and weak atheism (simply does not believe that there are gods). Most atheists are weak atheists because they can no more universally disprove the general claim of gods than they can universally disprove the claim that there is a tea-set on Charon. - ronin688, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@swampman
By any accepted definition of he word I am an atheist not an agnostic. An agnostic doesn't know what to think because there is no evidence. I actively believe there is no such thing as a deity. No offense to anyone who does believe, but I feel like religious people suffer from a low grade mental illness. It's inconcieveable to me that any rational person could possibly believe such a thing.
I consider myself enough of a science based person that I will admit that anything is possible, I'm not all knowing. I believe there is no such thing as a god in the same way that I believe in evolution or gravity, they are only theories but I accept them as fact.
I do however stop short from trying to "convert" people to atheism, or imposing my belief system on anyone else. I'll go in a church if the occasion comes up, I'll be polite and respectful to religious people when I encounter them. - Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ronin688
Sometimes from an atheists' perspective, it seems that religion makes everyone as dumb as creationalists. Obviously when the bible was written they weren't directly making a metaphor for evolution, but it can be understood as that today by people of faith. As I said, I was raised Catholic and I don't know any Catholics that believe in creationalism. In fact, the members of my family, both Jewish and Catholic (same book) are the most logical people I know. I would say they even go as far as can be without giving up their faith entirely which I begrudgingly admire in a way. I was not able to maintain that last little bit of faith through my educational years.
My point I guess is that as someone who is atheist now, and as someone who talks with atheists who have always been atheist, I get a sense that most of the latter group doesn't understand the intellectual abilities of religious person. I constantly hear atheists putting down Catholic