What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
204 Comments
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+52@Jerim:
"Science is neither pro-religion NOR is it anti-religioin."
I would have to disagree. I see the two as completely opposing viewpoints. One of them states "I do not know this, but I will continue looking for an answer". The other states "I do not know this, it must be the work of God, so I have no need to look further".
Religion is to take things as fact without proof. The aim of science is to gather proof in order to accept things. One of them blindly states it is right and refuses to take criticism. The other states it is as right as we can be for now, but would be willing to change if provided with enough evidence to do so.
This is why you cannot easily have a discussion on evolution without bringing in the argument of creationism (or ID, as current religious leaders argue). - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38billions and billions of fond memories. we miss you, carl.
- Moloth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Carl Sagan is and always will be a personal hero of mine... He's exactly the kind of man we need in this day and age when science, logic and reason are being attacked by those in power. Carl knew that education, wonder and endless curiosity were some of the greatest gifts of mankind. I miss him. :(
- Bodie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23The survival value of "beauty" is pretty simple. Who would you rather reproduce with, Rosie O'Donnell or Kathy Ireland?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@TheTaoOfBill
"Evolution is NOT fact as the man in the video said. It is still a theory."
The man in the video? This is why you have no credibility, you do realize. Evolution IS a fact. As the man in the video said, "it really did happen". - korimickster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Dude. I will find you. And I will punch you.
- Moloth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Thats the whole point, PabloMac... the crab DOESN'T 'want' or 'contemplate' anything... desire of the individual has basically nothing to do with evolution/natural selection. Perhaps you need to re-watch the clip...
- Bytor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Carl Sagan was a great beacon of light for science and reason. He wrote, IMO, the best book on critical thinking out there:
"The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the darkness"
It rips to shreds most of the pseudo science nonsense ( psychics, astrology, psychic surgery, UFO abductions, etc ....) and has an excellent Baloney detection kit.
I miss his odd (in this day and age) intelligent and gentle nature.
RIP Carl Sagan. I hope people can keep watching and reading his material and learning from him even now, after he has gone. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18There are hundreds of these, barneytoe, all of them great. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.html
"Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom and compassion to create the human body such that 70% of us suffer lower back pain, since our vertebrae are better designed to function as horizontal suspension bridges for our internal organs rather than as vertical supports for a bipedal mammal.
Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom and compassion to create many different species of wasp that stick their eggs on the outside of (or poke them inside) the bodies of caterpillars, beetles, crickets and spiders, so that the larva hatch and immediately begin eating their host alive.
Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom and compassion to make men reach their sexual peak at 16 and women reach their's at 35." - g33kfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@Jerim
The view that religion and science do not overlap and co-exists peacefully is known as NOMA - Non Overlapping Magisteria, coined by Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria). There's another view, known as the Conflict Thesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis), states that inevitably, science and religion will lead to hostility/conflict.
A universe where the laws of physics/chemistry/biology are determinant, versus a universe where an omnipotent being can alter these fundamental laws of nature are two VERY different universes. Either these laws are valid based on observable evidence, or they are not. The universe you and I live in have very determinant properties. The other universe only exists in works of fiction and religious doctrine.
While the Conflict Thesis is not necessarily true, NOMA is certainly erroneous as science will prove (day by day, based on observable evidence) that we live a determinant universe, and not one controlled by gods and faeries. - WITFITS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@TheTaoOfBill
re: "Evolution is NOT fact as the man in the video said. It is still a theory."
Actually, Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a "Scientific Theory"--in science, the word "theory" does not hold the same ambiguity as it does in common speech (scientific theories are not "hunches"). In addition, Evolution can be considered both a fact (organisms change from generation to generation) and a theory (evolution by natural selection, mutation, etc.), the same way Gravity is both a fact (bodies exert an attractive force on each other) and a theory (Newtonian physics, relativity, etc.)
Wikipedia has some decent writeups on both:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact - digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Listening to Carl Sagan speak makes me want to watch the Matrix for some reason. I think because he sounds like Agent Smith
- CadMasterAdam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Nice Clip from the "Cosmos" Shows
- banditski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@PabloMac
"...the theory of evolution has nothing to do with God's existence."
Evolution is a fact.
Evolution through Darwinian natural selection is a theory. A very strong theory, mind you. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Or maybe Agent Smith was trying to sound like Carl Sagan?
- bwjacket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I had a professor in college who was actually a NASA propulsion scientist by profession. Instead of lecturing us, I believe we watched almost every episode of "Cosmos". All in all, a good class.
- barneytoe, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20One of my fav. evolution quotes:
"Only God in his infinite wisdom could have designed the giraffe so that at birth it drops violently, 6 ft. onto its head."
Unknown - wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@TheTaoOfBill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-urey_experiment
Yeah, they did that a little more than 50 years ago. It might not have been /all/ the amino acids necessary for life, but within a week they had 13. - bpwwhirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I was noticing the same thing.
"You are a product of natural selection..... Mister Anderson." - ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I don't think you understood what he was saying in the clip...
- borsdy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I hope there's a banana joke.
- banditski, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16@jerim
I'd say that's because religion takes up a fight with evolution. If all religion says "yup, we were wrong, there was no Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Evolution is completely true 100%", then you'd hear a lot less fighting about it.
Funny, that you rarely hear religion tell chemists, mathematicians, engineers, etc. that they are wrong. But somehow evolutionary biologists have the monopoly on stupidity in the scientific realm. Well, unless a biologists says something that works in religions favour like admitting that a certain specific point is not fully understood. - Jerim, on 10/12/2007, -21/+30Why can we never have a discussion of evolution without at the very same time having a religion bashing session? So many people fight against evolution not because they disagree with it, but because evolution has become synonymous with anti-religion. Evolution is science. Science is neither pro-religion NOR is it anti-religioin.
- g33kfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@gert2
The teleological argument (aka "from design") does not hold any water. In essence, your premise is:
1) X is too complex to have existed by chance
2) X must have been designed by a more complex structure/being
3) God is that structure/being
4) Therefore, god exists!
The problem with that line of reasoning is that you will inevitably arrive at an infinite regress.
5) God is too complex and powerful to have existed by chance...
etc.
This social-political phenomenon known as religion also evolved within our specie. It has a tendency to attach itself onto gaps in scientific theories. If there is a gap in our understanding of the universe that we have yet to uncover (and we will uncover them all one day), religious proponents defaults to God.
Science: There are still things we have yet to understand about the universe
Religion: Your theories are therefore erroneous. God exists!
Why must the default position to the origin of species be creation? If per chance, tomorrow we discover evidence that natural selection is flawed. It is inevitable that another more plausible scientific theory will take its place. But I will bet you a million bucks religion will celebrate that day and claim victory over science.
You've also demonstrated how religion is prone to illogical and recursive line of reasoning with "If God can create a universe, I think He can make a woman pregnant without a man." In essence:
1) God exists because the bible says so
2) The events describe in the bible are within the realm of possibility because of the existence of God
etc. - yalskey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9TheShelf
Actually science has reproduced this. In fact, it's shown on one of Carl Sagan's Cosmos episodes. It's actually a fairly easy thing to reproduce, and would not have been all that uncommon given Earth's atmosphere and intense electrical storms back then.
Apostr0phe:
No, it's absolutely not the same thing! - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Sagan taught more than a couple NASA engineers.
- nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Totally agree.
Sagan's books were a huge influence on me. His style is mesmerizing.
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is an incredible book of his on evolution. - timmyboywonder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Everyone please report digggfan send an email to abuse@digg.com
- g33kfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@gert2
Exactly which part of the bible lines up with science? Is it the part about a "virgin birth"? Because as far as I know, no human being is capable of asexual reproduction. If you could show one shred of evidence on how this is possible (show me one human being on planet earth), that would completely blow away our understanding of human physiology... - spudicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@gert2
"You're assuming that God doesn't exist. Can you prove to me that He doesn't?"
You are correct. It is impossible to prove god does not exist. I also cannot prove that a great big blue space monkey that runs the universe does not exist even though I just made it up. The burden of proof is on those who assert god does exist. Can you prove god exists?
" I can at least prove that there is a first cause to the universe:
1. Every physical object that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has cause.
Question: What is the cause?
The big bang doesn't satisfy the question. It doesn't explain how the space, matter, forces, etc. came to exist."
We don't know the answer to your question. However, saying god did it doesn't answer the question either. Where did god come from? Some assert that god has always existed. How is that any different from saying the universe has always existed in some form? We still haven't answered the underlying question. - hagrin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So true.
I applied to and ended up going to Cornell in hopes to take one of his famous astronomy classes. I'll never forget reading Contact while listening to Silverchair's self-entitled album and then getting to school and Carl died. A true scholar who had so much knowledge that I wish I could have gleamed just a little of before he passed. - spudicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@gert2
"We aren't dealing with make-believe here. It doesn't matter if that's true, it's not applicable to the present. We know it's not true now, so it doesn't matter if people in the future believe it is or not."
How is what I describe any different from any other religion. Given enough time, all we have left is traditions that have been passed down and any writings that claim to relate to the religion.
"Here's where your lack of knowledge of Christianity comes into play"
Be careful what you assume. I was raised a christian and went to a christian school where we studied the bible quite extensively.
"The uniqueness of Christianity and Judaism is that they don't even claim to be made up."
I'm not aware of any religion, even new ones like scientology that claim to be made up. A religion's stock in trade is unprovable assertions.
"They provide a historical account of the creation and Israelites. (Christianity is simply "complete" Judaism. The Christian Old Testament and the Jewish scriptures area exactly the same.) The Bible was written by multiple people. In a sense, Christianity has 2 books. The Old and New Testaments. The Old testament claims to be started in about 4500 BC was completed in around 500 BC. The New Testament was begun in about 1 AD and was completed in about 60 AD. That's quite a timespan in between. And guess what. The OT ad NT totally agree with one another. The Bible was complied by multiple sources (the dead sea scrolls, traditional Jewish writings, different copies of the Gospels, etc.), which makes it ultimately from different sources, I have a lot of people backing me up. It's not circular because there isn't just a sacred book Y, it's Y1, Y2, Y3, etc."
What you are describing is the traditional belief about the origin of the bible which has been propagated by christian believers. Just because christians believe that the bible was divinely inspired by god doesn't make it true. What evidence do we have of this? The bible says so. Again this is a circular argument.
At its core religion is based on a belief in the supernatural and I have yet to see direct evidence that the supernatural exists. Just because the christian bible references events, places and peoples that existed, doesn't mean that any of the supernatural claims made by it are true.
I've had fun discussing this with you. I have to go make dinner and quit ignoring my guests now. The wife is giving me the stink eye. :P - pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@coolmaster121
Gravity is a theory too and it's a fact. - transcendz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@gert2 : buddhism, IMHO, is far more scientific than monotheist religions. In fact, it starts by the life of a man who tries to find solutions to the biggest problem for human people : suffering. It then gives a lot of techniques to resolve the problem. By the way, Buddha says "Don't blindly apply or think what I say, try it !". Furthermore, there's no god in buddhism, Buddha never answered this problem because it can't be known. If you want to criticize one's religion, which is not a good idea anyway, try to get some facts. Thanks.
- straxus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"If we assumed that he isn't, we would have no answer at all, and an answer is better than none."
I disagree. Knowing what you are ignorant of is better than having a wrong answer. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Tao, you are hopeless. At least take the time to read the links he provided for you. Evolution, much like gravity, will not be "proven wrong". Ever.
You are being lectured on elementary school science terms because you simply do not understand them. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Says you. Many scientists (actually, likely all scientists) would disagree with you.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In his present state, he is incapable of changing anything.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7WTF are you talking about? Sagan was pro-"the possibility of ET life" until he died. Find me one statement from Sagan that says otherwise.
- oxiegen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Wide open?
"...but as Darwin and Wallace showed. There is another way. Equally human, and far more compelling."
Besides, you can't learn about natural selection in 6 minutes and 24 seconds. Read several good modern books on the subject. Most people don't fully understand natural selection and evolution (even those who defend it). The original source, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin, is still a damn good educational book. Reading it you can easily see why it was such a pivotal moment in science (especially when you consider what it was like in 1859). - hotstarblade, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Get the hell out of here, digggfan.
- yalskey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So true....
I've read Demon Haunted World like 11 times! (no lie)
Shadows is awesome too, however chapters 5 and 6 are really hard to get through. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What 'field' are you talking about? In the realm of science and astronomy, he was always contemplating the potential for life elsewyere and encouraging us to do the same. He was working on the movie 'Contact' right up until his death.
- Tsuyoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Per Bandiski above:
Evolution is a fact.
Evolution through Darwinian natural selection is a theory. A very strong theory, mind you.
Per Me:
Gravity is also a fact.
Our understanding of what causes gravity is a theory.
It's semantics. But important none the less. - effexor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Just block him and don't post any comments about him. He'll get bored and vanish.
- chadlewis76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Silly conspiracy theory. Carl Sagan was a true man of science, in every sense of the word. Always a skeptic (of extraterrestrials), but never giving up hope (that extraterrestrials might exist). He debunked the crackpots because they devalued the real search.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@FearlessFreep
Your arguement rests on the belief that there must by a WHY. There is no evidence of a WHY, just a HOW. Not that theres anything wrong with believing in a WHY, but thats the point of science. Evidence is needed. The reason religion gets bashed in an evolution debate is they claim to know the WHY and made up the HOW, and are now purporting to call it science under the ruse which is intelligent design.
On a side note, I find it funny that in the mid-90's the pope said evolution is a viable theory. To think there are organizations in the US that are slower to change than the Catholic church is scary (I should know. I was born Catholic). - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Evolution deniers always use semantics to prove their opinions while having no idea what they talk about. - Neme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Carl Sagan is one of the greatest minds to have ever existed. His novel 'Cosmos' opened my mind up to so much; and inspired me to pursue a career in astronomy.
- spudicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@gert2
"You're thinking like a human; bound by this universe's laws, and your senses. Think outside the box. God isn't a physical object; therefore, he doesn't need a beginning. Why should a non-physical being have a beginning? Science doesn't explain it, but the Bible does. You have no reason to believe that a blue monkey runs the universe. "
You are absolutely right. I have no evidence of a great big blue space monkey. I just made it up. However, if I were to successfully found a religion based on this monkey, I would be very rich within 50 years and then in a thousand years there would be the same amount of evidence for the space monkey as there is for any of the supernaturally based religions that exist today, tradition and "sacred" texts.
"The burden of proof is on YOU, because I have an answer to the question, you don't."
You have belief. Good for you. However, you do not have proof. Your answer to the question is not provable so it is no different than any other supernatural explanation. The argument that tradition X along with sacred book Y is true because deity Z says so is a circular argument because the only evidence of the existence of deity Z is tradition X and sacred book Y. -
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is