What is Digg?319 Comments
- RichardGozinya, on 06/30/2008, -3/+207Conservapedia is always good for a laugh.
- seraph582, on 06/30/2008, -4/+165These people have clearly lost their ***** *minds.* I mean, honestly. A few uneducated people are going to stand up to a 20 year scientific experiment for the sake of... an idea? a notion? ***** it - lets all just go back to living in caves and regarding fire as that fearful thing that burns when you touch it. Every man for himself. ***** science.
- smcgrath, on 06/30/2008, -7/+147Can't you see what they are trying to do? Its all in the name off efficiency. The current scientific method takes roughly eight steps:
1) Define the question
2) Observe
3) Form a hypothesis
4) Perform an experiment and collect data
5) Analyze the data
6) Interpret the data to build a framework for your conclusions
7) Publish the results for peer review
8) Retest
They simply wish to replace this old outdated model with the new streamlined model which can be completed in two simple steps:
1) Observe
2) Interpret*
*one should note, no restrictions need to be applied here, any holes in logic can be filled with good ol' supernatural occurrences, divine will, or Flying spagetti monster shenanigans. - highlymodified, on 06/30/2008, -2/+111If by "laugh," you mean "decreasing one's faith in humanity"...absolutely!
- Renton, on 06/30/2008, -16/+125A note to all Republican diggers:
Please go to http://digg.com/settings/topics and uncheck the science section. You'll never have to see any more "crazy liberal conspiracies" such as evolution, global warming, the big bang, and a heliocentric star system. - blergle, on 06/30/2008, -3/+109Andy Schlafly = Cretin
- deathlyhallows, on 06/30/2008, -0/+96What gets me most is that Schafly didn't even bother to READ the paper before demanding the data (which was, ironically, in the paper). It really makes you wonder how much more proof the idiot needed before he would be convinced (answer=inifinitely more).
It also didn't help Conservapedia's case that its founder banned anyone who didn't agree with him during this whole debacle.
Judge for yourself, you can find a copy of Lenski's paper here:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%2 ...
You can find the exchange of e-mails between Lenski and Schafly here (NOT the censored version found on Conservapedia):
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair - staxofmax, on 06/30/2008, -6/+91Schlafly is so stupid. It's obvious that Jebus told the bacteria to start metabolizing citrate and they did!
Checkmate! - Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -4/+87There you have it. Macro evolution. They are not the same bacteria they were 20 years ago.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/01/2008, -1/+58Reading a creationist forum I stumbled across a comment something to the effect of
"Evolutionists are so stupid. They say that evolution causes animals to change over millions of years, but this is impossible because most animals only live for 20 years."
It seems so tempting to try to argue with that, but it's a trap. Before you know it you'll be drowning in a sea of circular arguments and Bible verses. But hey, at least you live in a country where they don't cut off people's heads over this stuff. - julianrod, on 07/01/2008, -0/+56And I always thought it was a parody site.
- Ferre1, on 06/30/2008, -3/+57More proof that religious indoctrination turns people into stupid creatures. In a way it's also some kind of evolution, religion can cause generations of degenerates.
- reddyman, on 06/30/2008, -0/+54I dunno...fire burns me when I touch it.
- Varz, on 06/30/2008, -3/+56This is the final nail in the Creationist coffin.
The only real argument Creationists ever had for not accepting evolution was the idea it seemed improbable that complex and useful biological attributes could be evolved. They argue that the random mutation of a complex useful structure is unlikely (it is), but they also argue that the evolution of a complicated useful structure is impossible as an organism will not be able to utilize the evolutionary structure until it is significantly complicated (ie it is the culmination of a series of mutations dependable or IC). Creationists say this puts organisms in the preliminary stages of evolution at a disadvantage as they're left with a half-formed but useless structure which would only be a waste of resources. Because of this disadvantage the organism (and it's genetic uniquity) would die out.
The study has shown that complicated structures can be evolved, not by the random mutation of complex features but by the gradual culmination of unique mutations. This was one of the biggest untested aspects of the theory of evolution, we know have irrefutable evidence that it is in fact possible.
I highly recommend reading the original piece (yes it's also linked in the article)
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/0 ... - sleepyjjk, on 06/30/2008, -2/+52Hm, they demand so much evidence from scientists (and it always seems to never be enough) while saying that there doesn't need to be evidence for God?
- zephyear, on 07/01/2008, -1/+50i'm positive at least a third of the views it gets are from people who are bored or depressed and want something to laugh at
- zip000, on 07/01/2008, -0/+45Did you see how long that article is? Printed out, it is 84 pages. 84 pages!
Man, those conservatives are really into the gays. - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -3/+48Christ, I'm trying to understand the logic here, but frankly, I just feel like I've had my brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick.
- InfamousAtheist, on 07/01/2008, -1/+45Reality has a strong liberal bias.
- nova912, on 06/30/2008, -1/+42Read the wikipedia article for 'conservapedia'; its a good.
- halfdirt, on 07/01/2008, -1/+42Restrictions do apply! It's the Christian God. The other religions are lies from the devil.
- Dumbledorito, on 06/30/2008, -0/+40FTA: "Lenski again notes that the paper actually contained the relevant data, and that Schlafly's complaints suggested he wouldn't know what to do with any further data were Lenski to provide it to him. In this, he was backed up by a number of Conservapedia members, who said more or less the same thing in the attached discussion. Several of those individuals are apparently now ex-Conservapedia members, having had their accounts blocked for insubordination."
Welcome to how places like "freerepublic.com" work. - SOS84, on 07/01/2008, -1/+40Where is Jimmyspaza?
- SpinningHead, on 07/01/2008, -4/+41We'll as I understand, micro vs macro, is a distinction made up by creationists. Most of human development was small changes over long periods or many generations (as with the bacteria). Many creationists like to claim evolution means a chimp having a human baby at some point in the past.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -0/+36After reading the first few sentences, I determined Conservapedia has about as much credibility as http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page
- brstilson, on 07/01/2008, -0/+35Even if Schlafly did examine the data directly, he would still deny it. This just goes to show that creationists really aren't interested in "academic freedom" or "open discussion." Their real goals are to undermine scientific facts they don't happen to like in favor of teaching magic. They are not interested in facts, they are not interested in truth. They have made up their minds. Schlafly showed his true colors like the producer of Expelled with he kicked PZ Myers out of the premiere. They're all for openness and a free exchange of ideas...until someone challenges their ideas. Then they turn into the closed-minded institution they claim to fight against.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -0/+34This is better: http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia
- rz8472, on 07/01/2008, -1/+35Search up "homosexuality".. there's another gem for you.
- macaddct1984, on 07/01/2008, -0/+33Link to the actual dialog between Schlafly and Lenski:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_ ...
Lenski's second reply is absolutely fantastic. - AlexanderZero, on 06/30/2008, -1/+34Andy Schlafly, what a dick.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -2/+33You're right. To correct Renton's comment, remove "Republican" and substitute "bat-***** insane right-wing creationists".
- Ramble, on 07/01/2008, -1/+31Evolving.
- SQLserver, on 07/01/2008, -0/+30It is important for everyone to know, while important, this study is not the first example of new features evolving, new species forming, or new information being added to the genome.
For several examples of each, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html - SOS84, on 07/01/2008, -1/+31Creationist thought is the result of, and no one has ever said it better than Lewis Black, "A clinical psychotic reaction."
- MudMan69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+29Or the tooth fairy. Both ideas have equal merit.
- Varz, on 07/01/2008, -2/+30Uncyclopedia and Conservapedia are equally veritable and equally funny.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
Disturbingly, Conservapedia unintentionally achieves its comical nature. - SpudgeBoy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+29You wanna see something funny, go to their statistics page and check out what all the conservatives are searching for.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics
Atheism and Homosexuality.
God and Gays.
Don't they have anything better to do? - trogdoor, on 07/01/2008, -8/+35Not all Republicans are creationists, most maybe but generalisations are rarely if ever warranted.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+25Wrong! I taught high school, you wouldn't begin to believe.
- julianrod, on 07/01/2008, -0/+24Just send them some E. coli in an envelope, so they can see for themselves!
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+23Conservapedia is less credible than Encyclopedia Dramatica
- wonderchemist, on 07/01/2008, -0/+23Fire BAD!
- Disgod, on 07/01/2008, -0/+23The idiocy of creationists know no limit. There will always be jackasses like Schlafly who will never believe evolution is real.
What they never seem to realize is that when they are denying the existence of evolution, and say the earth is 6000 years old, they're not just denying biology, they're denying almost every single field of science. It isn't like biology is some separate field completely apart from the rest of science. They would have to deny evidence from chemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, oceanography, the entire medical field, and the list goes on (I just can't think of any other fields right now). Each of these fields interlocks and forms one great big picture. The Universe is somewhere around 13.7 billion years ago, the earth formed ~4.5 billion years ago, life appeared ~4 billion years ago, life has been evolving steadily into more and more complex organisms with the first multi-cellular organisms appearing ~1 billion years ago, which we can see thanks to the fossil layers, which we know about because geology knows how long each geologic layer took to form, and through the various dating methods, which have been cross referenced with each other through double blind scientific experiments. We're not talking about 1 specific field they are denying, they're denying all of science.
They never seem to realize that, and they never will. - 180andback, on 07/01/2008, -4/+26There ought to be a check box in the upper right of the screen for conservatives. Unchecking the box marked "Facts" will... ahh... well, let's just say it automatically does a low-level format on the user's hard drive and brain.
- smacksaw, on 07/01/2008, -2/+24I guess the hand of God was touching those bacteria, slowly, over time. Or perhapas His Noodly Appendage. I guess we can't prove which deity helped those little dudes evolve.
- akkibaba, on 07/01/2008, -1/+23Seems like a troll post, NOBODY can be that intensely stupid.
- pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -1/+22their entry on global warming seems to be inline with many of digg's armchair climatologists:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming - Disregard, on 07/01/2008, -0/+21I don't know why Creationists bother to write long pseudo-responses to things like this.
They might as well just say "Satan made it happen to trick us" and it would suit 99% of their constituency just as well. - GrantTheGr8, on 07/01/2008, -0/+20Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster?
- kitsua, on 07/01/2008, -0/+20Yes it is. That page is a fantastic read. Such satisfying pwnage.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 323 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is