digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Creationism - 'The empty cage' (pic)

sciencehumor.org — We look forward to seeing what He comes up with. Funny.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pygar, on 10/11/2007, -366/+49Why the hell should God fill it with anything? Could God give a toss about a bunch of arrogant, spoiled, think-you're-actually-clever dicks like you ? Or your stupid cage for that matter ? I don't think so. Tell you what, why don't you lock yourselves in it, or even better, chuck yourselves down a hole or off a bridge - and post us a picture of it. We could all use a laugh at something that genuinely IS FUNNY.
    • AegisGFX, on 10/11/2007, -12/+125Someone got up a little cranky this morning....
    • iamafatguy, on 10/11/2007, -6/+66Wow. is that wjwd?
    • karakh, on 10/11/2007, -7/+88See, I told you religionists aren't violent.....
    • dichotom, on 10/11/2007, -6/+77"Could God give a toss about a bunch of arrogant, spoiled, think-you're-actually-clever dicks like you?"

      You tell us! Isn't that pretty much the crux of the whole religion thing?

      "I don't think so."

      Oh..... well... nevermind then.
    • gromnie, on 10/11/2007, -5/+52"Could God give a toss about a bunch of arrogant, spoiled, think-you're-actually-clever dicks like you?"

      Yes; otherwise why would He care if you worshiped Him or not?

      Matthew 10:29-31 --
      Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
      But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
      Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

      Seems God gives a toss about lots of things. Omniscience, you know.
    • vertinox, on 10/11/2007, -9/+18@"Could God give a toss about a bunch of arrogant, spoiled, think-you're-actually-clever dicks like you ?"

      Apparently, he cared enough to give them enough brains to question illogical thinking. Seriously, did god ever come down and say "Here is how I created the universe?"

      He didn't? Then who is to say he didn't use evolution? Hell... Who is to say he didn't even bother with intelligent design and said "Oh the hell with it... I'll throw a few galaxies around and whatever comes up... comes up!"

      Simply put... You have no evidence for or against and for all we know... Man made up the bible in order to thwart god's true intentions.
      • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"Man made up the bible in order to thwart god's true intentions."

        The ultimate conspiracy?
      • nobody554, on 10/11/2007, -23/+2"Seriously, did god ever come down and say "Here is how I created the universe?""

        Genesis 1
        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=31

        The earth is part of the Universe...
      • RanIntoTheDevil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Yes because god wrote the bible himself. Whoever said it was a bunch of men doing their best to understand the universe with the little knowledge they had at the time?
    • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+46Ah, you must be a True Christian.
    • Syntaxis, on 10/11/2007, -7/+58Hahaha fantastic, brilliant, religious nuts always keep me entertained.. they always reach a certain point where they resort to one of these:

      1. "LALALALALA! I can't hear you! LALALA" (christians)
      2. You need to respect religion or I'm gonna kick your ass! (redneck christians)
      3. Allahu akhbar! BOOM! (muslim fanatics)
      4. Evolution? I AM NOT A MONKEY! (all of em)

      And every religious person thinks that his own personal invisible friend (and conveniently, also creator of the universe) that he was taught from birth to believe in is real, and nothing else can be true. No proof required.
      • fcukthisgame, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16and "It's all in the bible."
      • RanIntoTheDevil, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Classifying a whole religious group by a few outspoken nut jobs has to be one of the most ignorant and arrogant things to do.
        • Twisty, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4But most of the time classifying is totally accurate. Not always but it's usually right.
        • RanIntoTheDevil, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Although I am not a Christian anymore, I did grow up in a great community and went to church weekly with intelligent, kind, level-headed Christians who realized not all of the Bible has to be taken as fact and that it is open to interpretation. Therefore, my view may be a bit different than most here.
        • Twisty, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1See it's not always right. But where I come from, if you don't think the way everyone else thinks you are teh devils ZOMG!
    • RamezaniK, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31Dude, you're an idiot--you don't need a space between the last word of the sentence and the question mark.
      • wattznext, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2HAHA! Dude, you made my day. I actually laughed so hard i cried a little!
    • azngrl0330, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17I think God has already created the creature intended to be kept endlessly in that tiny metal cage... Only it escaped and now is making derogatory comments at other Diggers.
    • hellochildren31, on 10/11/2007, -36/+3Pygar you are so sweet and right. i absolutely hate these evolutionist retards. I have NEVER heard a more retarded thing than saying man evolved from ape. there is so much proof that the earth is only 3000 years old it isnt even funny. and man couldnt have evolved that fast. and all you retards think about this. IF evolution is really true than the evolving creatures would have to evolve the exact same way at the exact same time otherwise reproduction would not work and none of us would be here.
      • KalvinCoolEdge, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22What? Are you serious? That's not remotely true - do a little research. Where did you get these ideas?
        I think the idea that you are getting at is that you have to be genetically identical to your partner to conceive? If you believe this you and your husband/brother/identical twin are going to be trying a long time for that baby. Evolution(and survival) THRIVE on the differences. Interbreeding causes all sorts of genetic problems.
        And yes, i know that twins aren't technically identical either...
        Oh please post a link to some of the evidence you have that the earth is only 3000 years old. It would be good fodder against those ridiculous xtians who believe the earth is 6000 years old.(crazy but true!)
      • craprock, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3It is impossible for creatures to evolve the exact same way at the exact same time. Genetic mutations can happen to more than one creature because of external factors (where they live for example). Nothing is exact and god Does play dice with the universe.
      • OmEgA286, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8im fairly certain he was joking.
    • Shadic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30"We could all use a laugh at something that genuinely IS FUNNY."

      Your moronic ranting is funny, does that count?
    • UltraPenguinX, on 10/11/2007, -20/+1Even though everyone here is so much better than people who believe in a religion, I found your comment on the matter to be true and very funny. Though it won't matter at all, I'm giving you reply a thumbs up, pygar!
      • KalvinCoolEdge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8If by 'better' than you mean I do not take any kind of sadistic glee in suicide then yes, I AM better than you.
      • siecly, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2im an athiest and dont consider myself better than people who live by god, its just religious nutcases are the funniest things, they are just one hugh contradiction
    • ChileanGoD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Dude, it's just a little proof of concept we're asking for.
    • cheekdog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6dude...i would have dug you for your screen name's reference to barbarella...but your idiotic rant saved me in the end!
  • wwwspirit, on 10/11/2007, -65/+232Star Wars Jedi, Harry Potter, Jesus... people are REAL touchy about their choice in fantasy fiction.
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -12/+52I know. Pfft, you'd think they had a real religion like Pastafarianism.

      I mean, how many deities offer you a stripper factory and beer volcanoes. You know it makes sense.
      • mc1123, on 10/11/2007, -20/+8[bury me now]
      • sotopheavy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1A stripper factory would be a bad thing... unless you removed the part of the production process that gives them V.D. I'm all for Mount Budweiser as long as my beer doesn't come out warm.
        • kinerry, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Dumbass, if they come from a factory, they are all new, hence VD free
    • MacintoshSauce, on 10/11/2007, -82/+16Sorry but Jesus Christ is not fantasy fiction.
      • Azimuth1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+47That's what they want you to think.
        • Waterrat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14@ Azimuth1
          If I could Digg you up 100 times for that one,I would.
      • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15Ohh your so cute. hey wanna sublet my aparrtment for 3000 a month?
      • gambit2121, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19how do you know, were you there?
        • DYMongoose, on 10/11/2007, -25/+7There are many documents - both religious and secular - that note the historical existance of Jesus Christ.
          • ralph123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18There's in fact not one, I can only repeat it, not a single secular or rather non-christian document written at the time in question that notes the existence of Jesus.
          • rabidg00se, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Wikipedia has a very interesting article on Jesus' historical existence actually. Keeping in mind that I'm faaaar from a religious believer, you should check this out:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Josephus
          • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Ralph has it correct. There is nothing other than a few minor scribblings to denote the historical existence of Jesus (and when i say "few", i'm talking, like.. four). There is much, however, to implicate Christianity for blatantly plagiarizing various pagan sun-god religions. Most facets of the Christian story (born of a virgin, the 12 disciples, the three kings, death for atonement of sins, born in the winter solstice, water into wine, having a god for a father, etc etc) were all told many times before Christ in other god-man stories.
        • fcukthisgame, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13find me one. That doesn't begin with 'The Gospel According to'
      • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Certainly not science-fiction, either.
      • Syntaxis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14True. It's just a character in a hopelessly outdated fairy-tale.
      • IdanE, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21Jesus was probably real. There's lots of evidence that points to him being an actual person.
        Saying the dude was the son of god, on the other hand, is about as credible as an average "LOST" episode - you think that if you believe hard enough, you will get the answers - Jesus said so!
        • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7not really lots evidence, but it's kinda acceptable
        • LexisNexis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10At least LOST will be wrapping up in a couple of seasons.
        • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There's actually almost no secular evidence of Jesus being an actual person. I see it as being irrelevant anyway. The Jesus being worshipped isn't even remotely close to the "historical" one, if he existed. The Jesus being worshipped is a fabrication, plagiarized from ancient pagan sun-god stories.
      • KalvinCoolEdge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Jesus Christ is the work of Voldemort. Don't believe his lies!!
    • ToadLeg, on 10/27/2007, -5/+68Sorry but Harry Potter is not fantasy fiction.
      • elementfire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Yeah, it's a historical work. Get with the program.
      • peterpanda, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6well duh... it's a documentary filmed in real time.
    • sotopheavy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I'd personally like to see a large delicious bird that breathes carbon dioxide and exhales air. Please send several so we don't have to clone it and perform stem cell research on it.

      :-)
  • macfan76, on 10/11/2007, -83/+249Grow up people. Why does everything here on Digg have to de-volve into either:
    1. Bush rant
    2. Christian rant
    3. Ron Paul rules all rant

    • bradallen18, on 10/11/2007, -6/+874. Apple ; )
      • ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39I wonder why "macfan76" didn't include Apple? It's the first thing I would have included.
      • Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -15/+15Ron Paul is an arse.
        • artofwar420, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! How dare thee!!
      • bluezinc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I agree, but that video where he calls that smart ass fat is awesome. I'd vote for him if he promised to do that everyday.
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7Ubuntu FTW!
    • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -25/+6My guess as to why you don't like those rants is because your intellectual capacity is that of a caveman.

      • BigJ27, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Yeah. Dugg. I too see how this article is news related.
      • rholloway, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Wait--you actually used a caveman reference to insult someone's intelligence? I hope you were beaten by your parents, raped by a priest, and humilated at school.
    • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -44/+6It's the liberal media and impressionable minds. The media presents the material, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon to promote it. It gets rather old, and is the leading cause as to why I don't visit Digg as much as I used to.
      • Azio, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25I love it when right wingers think they're independent, non-impressionable rebels.
      • xgkx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19if you think the media is liberal you are moron.
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"It's the liberal media and impressionable minds. "

        What is the "It" you are referring to?
    • adamwho, on 10/11/2007, -7/+50God forbid we have a democratic forum.
      • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -24/+2God forbid we have to listen to your opinion.
      • Klowner, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7With a majority of a-holes.
    • gungaroo22, on 10/11/2007, -4/+53The news on Digg represents the user base's opinion, in general.
      The majority of diggers like/care/digg those subjects.

      Why can't you understand the basics of a social news site?
      • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -25/+8Granted there is some interesting news on the site, I just don't particularly care for the unnecessary and utterly pointless attacks against religion.
        • sabach, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22Then don't read them.
          • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Or, don't frequent this site if you can't handle the free market of ideas. Get thee to a nunnery!
        • Septimus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Not attacking it, just laughing at it.
        • ScottMaximus1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6It's pretty laughable, you people believe in some magical man in the sky!
        • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2You say that as if religion has never made attacks on the non-religious lifestyle.
      • SJKat, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2Yeah, it's easy to understand that diggers are retards that like to recite the same ***** over and over again. He told you to grow up. Why can't you understand the basics of growing up?
      • gameforge, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"The news on Digg represents the user base's opinion, in general."
        Uhh... you must be new here? Google "gaming Digg". It still happens. Did you catch the recent submission about all the Ron Paul fuss on Digg being artificial? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that Digg goes beyond the "basics" of a social news site.
    • hesitaliandad, on 10/11/2007, -14/+25. weed
    • CaptShmo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17I miss all the Wii threads
      • alexforcefive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I bought resident evil 4 the other day. it's really good!
    • Shimoniskey, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Bbbbbut.... Ron Paul does rule all!
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21Get over it, if you don't like the article don't read/digg it. Clearly a majority of people found the picture funny it's a shame you can't.
    • UltraMegaFilms, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3Hahahahahhaha, "macfan"76. Mac has to be the most zealously commented topic on Digg! Were you born in 1976 too? ***** A! Your digg's don't really help you at all either. Your whining on a chat board, why don't YOU grow up bitch.
      • mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"Your whining on a chat board, why don't YOU grow up bitch."
        You are flaming on a chat board. What does that say about you?
    • dagnome1984, on 10/11/2007, -2/+186. iPhone bukkake
      • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0That word makes me gag... nasty *****.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -12/+221. Because Bush has done more damage than the last 10 presidents combined.

      2. Because the people who believe in 2000+ year old goat herder and camel driver scifi, also wants me to follow them and to live by their rules. have you ever asked yourself why your god hates amputees? Not a single recorded case of an amputee with a regrown limb.

      3. Ron Paul? That is all the lunatic right wingers new baby and it stinks.
      • cheesesoda, on 10/11/2007, -3/+53. Right wingers? Most of the right-wingers I know like Romney and Gingrich. I'm in support of Ron Paul, but I'm hardly what you would call right wing, let alone the lunatic right. Libertarianism is at odds with both the right and the left, and last time I checked, Ron Paul is a libertarian.
    • svenathon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Erm, I think in this case discussing creationism is somewhat appropriate given the link.
    • KalvinCoolEdge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+47.(or whatever) Complaining about your fellow diggers..
    • BuckyDent, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2what about linux/osx supremacy rant
  • laserjobs, on 10/11/2007, -35/+10When Ron Paul becomes President, he could fill it with Bush and all his Christian buddies.
    • Fieri, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2Not amusing. Please pander to at least one side to get dugg up instead of making ambiguously vague statements lacking in humor.

      Thank you.
    • brycelb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1The Ron Paul rants are just as humorous. Everyone loves their fiction!
    • deadlikeoscar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5FYI, Ron Paul is a Christian...And uh, I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo...
      • uninvolved, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0The one about the new cover sheets?
  • Fascist, on 10/11/2007, -18/+90GOD WILL PUT A ***** WALRUS INTO THE CAGE.
    • carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -6/+105if he's a merciful god then he will also put a bucket in there too.
      • Godlike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I think he should ressurrect michael jackson from 1981 and put him in the cage.
        • hplasm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4...with the ***** walrus? That would be worth a look.
          • ScottMaximus1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Coo Coo Cahooo
          • aoneal417, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4coo coo ka choo check out this reply chain
          • Tetranitrate, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I'd pay a pretty penny to see Michael Jackson having sex with a walrus.
      • HallsOfMandos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7and a caps lock key....
    • karakh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I am the walrus, you are the CAPS-man!
    • nycmac247, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1"Walrus"?...Is this a Beatles joke?
    • hplasm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4A hermaphrodite self-***** walrus? Sweet!
    • DforSpiD, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2What the ***** Fascist?
      It had better be a damn unicorn
    • phoenix78, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Now by that, are you using "*****" as an adjective or a verb? Will it literally be having sexual intercourse with something, or is it...uh how is that an adjective again?
  • carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -29/+115meh, i get it, it's a little funny, but it's mostly just stirring up ***** unnecessarily.
    • TrevorBradley, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23I love how "The Emperor has no clothes" is just stirring up ***** unnecessarily...
      • TrevorBradley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Didn't get to edit in time.. A little wikipedia goodness for everyone...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emporer%27s_new_clothes

        The expressions The Emperor's new clothes and The Emperor has no clothes are often used with allusion to Andersen's tale. Most frequently, the metaphor involves a situation wherein the overwhelming (usually unempowered) majority of observers willingly share in a collective ignorance of an obvious fact, despite individually recognizing the absurdity.
      • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13If you have to explain the joke, chances are it's not funny.
      • carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4alrighty, good point, I'll concede that. it's still doesn't seem like much more than a strawman argument with the cage though, there's much better ways to disrobe an emporer who's already naked.
        • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yes it is. If you deal with people like Kurt Wise who said: ""if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate," the only thing you can do is ridicule them.
    • ornerycat, on 10/11/2007, -16/+4The difference is "The Emperor has no clothes" was actually clever.

      This is just heavy-handed arrogance. And it's lame.
  • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1Can't tell in the picture, but I hope the cage will be big enough. If not, and the animal dies, is it sacreligious? Or just messy and a great story?
    • ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I think you completely missed the point of the cage...
      • BrapAllgood, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Thank you for explaining what I missed. Oh, wait, you didn't. Maybe YOU missed something.
  • jmgoody311, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2http://www.sciencehumor.org.nyud.net:8080/2007/creationism-cage/
    http://www.sciencehumor.org.nyud.net:8090/2007/creationism-cage/

    some possible mirrors, duggmirror missed it.
  • MrHappy123, on 10/11/2007, -16/+93GOD took the website down for making a mockery of him :D
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27Nah, the FSM just knocked out the site for non-believers* in order to trick them into believing that laughable god story.

      *he alters the packets with his noodly appendage before they reach the network stack.
      • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4automatic digg for FSM reference
      • hplasm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2he alters the packets with his noodly appendage before they reach the network stack, or else he gets the macaroni again!
    • BuckyDent, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1looks like its back up so...
  • jamesmarshall, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3Holy hell... 50 diggs and down.
  • BIGJHUB, on 10/11/2007, -48/+20i really dont like how every time i go to digg, there is a post bashing creationism.
    • rushiku, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33I can think of a simple solution...
    • zephc, on 10/11/2007, -7/+38What respect has Creationism garnered that we missed? Where it presented a coherent and falsifiable theory? Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet (and I don't see it happening in the future). It deserves nothing more than Myth status, along with every other creation myth.
      • dutchdude15, on 10/11/2007, -30/+4A myth? R U serious? Check the "myth" out before you knock it: http://creationism.org/topbar/creationism.htm
        • stormgren, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Argument from ignorance. I can't understand how it would happen without Jeebus, thus it didn't happen without Jeebus.

          Patently false, dutchdude.
        • wannabenomad, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9A myth is a "sacred truth" meaning that it is both true (on a certain level) and sacred to a group of people. It is a very beautiful way of understanding the world, but it can not and should not ever be analyzed in the same way that scientific theories are analyzed.
          Seeing a myth as absolute, physical reality is childish. Ironically, it also limits one's spiritual understanding of the message the myth contains.
          The problem with "creation science" is that it compares apples and oranges: a person's spiritual understanding of life, its purpose and meaning, and the scientific reality of the world around us.
        • reckless7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14oh, this came from creationism.org. There's no way that it's biased...
        • dutchdude15, on 10/11/2007, -19/+0So, none of these claims are accurate? http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml
          • covertbadger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14No, none of them are. In particular, it makes the common idiotic mistake of failing to understand what evolutionary theory actually involves (hint: it has nothing to do with "these chemicals combined and came to life"). It also makes a number of other classic errors (or deliberate misdirection, if you prefer) such as the static landscape fallacy - and I can't even see someone use that 747 argument without cracking up. Seriously, you guys are still relying on that?
        • reckless7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Not necessarily, but think about anytime you've ever written a paper in school. Any argument must be supported by multiple sources. You can't just provide one source. If this was a school paper, you'd get points off for only having one biased source.
        • zephc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10dutchdude15: do you understand what "falsifiable" means?
        • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6As much as the link dutchdude sent is pure BS, I do love this quote:

          "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
        • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"How many dimensions are there? Humans have five senses and we're relegated to a small bluish planet on the side of a particular galaxy. Does it make sense to you that we can somehow come to grips with "all that is"? Remember that we've only known about the existence of radio waves for the past 100 years. Modern humans are hot stuff, huh? Have you ever walked into a room and fell a "chill" or that something was wrong? Have you ever sensed that you were being watched? ...How many dimensions are there? Could there be dimensions (or realms) outside of our inherently limited natural senses?
          -why the fsck would "God" create extra dimensions that NOBODY can tell exist. this in and of itself is proof against creationism
          Pride goes before a fall.
          -pride also leads to great advances in the human race
          my favorite aspect of this article is the fact that instead of attempting to bring logical thought into the argument they continue on with their mystical, ask-a-question-to-respond-to-a-question methods.
    • ElwoodHerring, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21Funny, that's exactly what I DO like about Digg.
    • wannabenomad, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2I'm no creationist, but I'm with you on that. Anyone who has made it to 2007, has been exposed to the world at large in any way and still takes a literal view of creationism isn't going to be convinced by logic, humor or anything else. At some point, you have to respect the views people hold, no matter how bizarre they may seem.
      Let's just focus on keeping creationism out of elementary schools and in churches and college-level mythology classes where it belongs
      • bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I disagree. We need to constantly barrage the idea in hopes that the young won't fall into their laughably fallacious footsteps.
        • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Isn't this the same philosophy espoused by people who want Christians to stop protesting Gay Rights parades?
          Someday, when everyone's done yelling their beliefs at everyone else, the world might, just maybe, become a bit more peaceful.
          • bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Not yelling, this is not yelling. This is a subtle satirical jab. This is as passive as you can get. I guarantee you, atheists are much more willing to engage in scholarly debate than yelling, the former format favors way more.
    • Halatia, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Every belief is bashed everywhere everyday. Suck it up, stand up for what you believe in (this can come in the form of a) not supporting sites that don't support what you believe in or b) simply not reading those posts that offend you), and learn to be tolerant.

      And always have a good counter-zing in your pocket.
    • ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Maybe it's because the reasoning behind Creationism is so bafflingly hilarious?
    • Esstee, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Most people here can't even wipe there own asses, let alone put up a viable argument. I don't see what the problem is really... This is about the equivalent of infants trying to reason a topic which they cannot possibly comprehend. - its meaningless at best.
      • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"Most people here can't even wipe there own asses"

        You know, there's no real point in saying ***** like that. Just kinda invalidates your arguments. Ah well, this is a lost cause.
    • wrekone, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15DIGG users like science.
    • lswinney, on 10/11/2007, -23/+1Because Digg and its morons go by the rule: "of the atheist, by the atheist, for the atheist. This and the fact they're mostly Marxists and hate Americas' freedom of religion, go hand in hand. I'd like to hear just one of them deny it.
      • hplasm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I deny it.
      • Esuzumy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I deny your accusations, good sir.
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10You're all in favor of freedom and free markets - but not the free marketplace of ideas.
        What you really can't tolerate is this manifestation of democracy and free speech. So who *really* hates America?
      • ScottMaximus1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I believe Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin were all diests and fervent secularists, so your argument holds


        zero water
      • sherrife, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I´m an Anarchist (a little further to the left of Marx, if that helps), and I can tell you with 100% confidence that there are very few Marxists around on Digg. Meneame on the other hand (Spanish equivalent of Digg)... that is practically heaven.

        Anyway, I just wanted to suggest that you check out what Marxism actually is before using it in a conversation.
        Otherwise you could look stupid. :)
    • alterImperson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Dear Creationists, You are sitting in front of the biggest metaphor for evolution we humans have. Think about it. May I recommend some Douglas Adams, say the Salmon of Doubt book? There's quite a good speech in the Universe section. I don't deny the existence of a creating or guiding force, but I believe that evolution is the only way humans could exist.
  • hmmdar, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5it fall down and go boom
  • luisbrudna, on 10/11/2007, -9/+0Sorry... my website freeze with this Dugg.
    :-/
    Im gosted by dreamhost. :-)
    • luisbrudna, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0*hosted
      • zigman91090, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1actually..

        Sorry... my website FROZE with this BEING SUBMIT TO DIGG
        :-/
        I'M HOSTED by Dreamhost :-)
  • maiwongwang, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16God will take the cage away and put a flaming dog turd there.
  • Fieri, on 10/11/2007, -6/+52He can't just put one creature in the cage. It would go extinct in one generation. =(
    • ElGuano, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Why? Can't He just make it not go extinct?
      • omegadirective, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3lol, so true
      • mrmacky, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1No, if he did that, it'd be breaking man's laws... and then we'd need to make some new laws... and that would get evolutionists pissy >:P
        • Arcan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Are you saying that God has to abide by the "laws" of evolution? That's the first time I've ever heard a Creationist argument like that
  • floatersoma, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0http://www.duggmirror.com
  • CerealFan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34Mirror: http://www.sciencehumor.org.nyud.net:8080/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/cage.jpg
  • eak125, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Actually Apoxonyou5 - Nigerians are a rather religious group.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Religion
  • danomagnum, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9http://www.pandasthumb.org/creationism-thumb.jpg
    or a google image search comes up with it
  • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -11/+12Why isn't every creationist just given a get out of jail free card and then sent to a street corner with a paper cup filled with pencils and a sign that says the end days are near?

    Then we could all just ignore them and get on with the business of reality!
    • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5Why isn't every moron given a free shut the ***** up card?

      I can ignore you and get on with reality... it's called block :-)
      • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3ohh i see you are a ***** dumb ***** republican. Well the blood is on your hands *****. You are destroying american families about 110 a month. Congrats you pile of *****.
        • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2You know dude, I can tell you right now that you're sure as ***** not helping your cause.
        • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1And how the hell did you come to the conclusion that I was republican? And for the record, my ***** doesn't have hands.
    • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13Agreed. The part about creationism that scares the living crap out of me is that "rapture" BS. Some of them believe that there's no point in fixing what we've f*cked up, because it won't matter for much longer. Sad... and troubling.
      • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Buried as inaccurate? Anybody want to point out my mistake(s)?
        • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I dugg you. I think some people are in the habbit of burying anything that includes a perspective that they disagree with.

          I would, however, like to point out that, as a good Christian, I believe that care for the Earth is one of the most important charges given to us by God, and that loving our neighbors is not only righteous but vital, and that refusing to try to correct these mistakes is, well, wrong.
      • ParanoydAndroid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Well, you are correct for certain sects of Christianity, but not others. Christian beliefs about the whole end-of-days thing can vary pretty wildly, and are too numerous to go into fully; in essence, some belief Christ will kick off a 1000 year reign on Earth after ***** gets totally ***** up (those may not be the precise words in revelations ...), and therefore love it when the world is getting pretty bad (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses), and some believe Christ will come for his reign only _after_ peace comes on Earth (e.g. evangelicals, it's why they keep trying to convert everyone, they need the world to be perfect), when the rapture takes place during the whole Apocalypse thing is actually another discussion altogether.
    • wickedphantom, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Why does every evolutionist feel it is their personal duty to run creationists through the mud and smear them as crazy, bible-thumping, rednecks who have nothing better to do than tell other people how superior they are.... Wait a second, one group calling itself superior to the others...sounds oddly familiar. Hmm...."***** dumb...pile of *****" seems to come to mind.

      Cant we just have logical debates about facts and observations? Why does everything have to get so nasty?
  • azAZ09, on 10/11/2007, -9/+110This is a bad idea. A spider could crawl in through the bars then some creationist could try to make believe the spider was created there.
    "Prove it wasn't" they will say.

    • ScarlemNocturne, on 10/11/2007, -17/+11Or, in a bizzaro-twist, God creates a spider in there and the evolutionists will cry that it crawled in there.
      "Prove it didn't" they will say.

      Ah, the circle of life.
    • SJKat, on 10/11/2007, -16/+5Hey, bitch. Let's just wait something to 'evolve' in the cage instead.
    • Syntaxis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I refer to both the explanations above for evidence that religious nuts rather take the far-fetched, illogical and easily disproven "answer" to a problem, rather than the rational, reproducable and downright logical explanation.

      Basically: "Oh no, lightning! Quick! Sacrifice a virgin to please GOD!" versus: "let's install lightning rods to stop the electrical discharge caused by {insert scientific explanation} so we don't get harmed"
      • SJKat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0How illogical of you to think that believing that God created space-time is somehow controversial to logical thinking in that space-time.
    • DforSpiD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This one can be solved with cameras
  • alpine75, on 10/11/2007, -32/+8If your belief in evolution is grounded in strength and in truth, then why the preoccupation - if not obsession with creationism?
    • mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25Because idiots are funny to laugh at.
      • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -17/+5@mike17032
        So true. You're a dumb ass and we often laugh at you.
        • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Yeah, well you know what is two words? ***** you.
        • ScarlemNocturne, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Hahah, I lol'd. Both that Louis owned you and that "Dumb ass" and "Dumbass" are still both insults. Technically, "Dumb ass" is correct since it actually MEANS something grammatically.
      • Shawn4168, on 10/11/2007, -14/+0Haha...look at that idiot evolutionist!
    • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20Creationist is like a cancer. if not treated soon and destroyed the whole body will become infected and you will eventually die.

      Much like the progressions of conservatism.

      • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1"destroyed"?

        Son of a bitch, where did the reasonable middle go?!?!
        • Amoveo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5What is the reasonable middle between "God created everything in 7 days" and "there must be some kind of rational and natural explanation"? God created everything in 7 months?
          • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3he was referring to the idea that Creationists should be destroyed.

            BTW, a great many people believe in a divine creation that sewed the seeds of life and planned it's progression through billions of years. Wouldn't that be a reasonable middle?
    • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Because idiots want that nonsense force-fed to my children in public schools.
      • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2As opposed to the idiots who force-feed my children Evolution?

        I have an idea: if we can't agree on something, let's just not teach it in public schools. Is it so hard for a teacher to say "ask your parents" when a kid asks about the origin of life? Or are we just too damned lazy to take responsibility for our kids' education
        • Amoveo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Evolution has legitimate scientific evidence. For a teacher to present this evidence would not be force feeding it would be doing their damn job. My high school Biology teacher didn't teach us evolution because he was afraid of religion nutjobs like you complaining. Now everyone in my Bio class is missing information they should have been taught in school. Thanks a lot.
          • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2How, exactly, is such a hotly debated discussion about the origin of life necessary to succeeding in modern society, or having a well-rounded education? And, you never answered me as to why parent's can't explain it themselves, or let the kids wait till college to hear about it, or, (heaven forbid), let students do independent research on it.
            Oh, and are you sure your teacher wasn't worried about his students complaining? Or doesn't that matter to you, because if they already don't believe in evolution at 15 or 16, they qualify as "religious nutjobs"? Or maybe you should just raise all of our kids, so that they can get all the information that they need!
          • covertbadger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@Enchantrem, but not threaded because digg sucks so badly

            "How, exactly, is such a hotly debated discussion about the origin of life necessary to succeeding in modern society"

            Because, you cretinous idiot, evolutionary theory is the bedrock of a colossal amount of extremely beneficial research in medicine and disease control, and if we don't educate people in the fundamentals you'll suddenly find your life expectancy dropping like a stone. Of course, you're free to pray that god will save you when you're wasting away, but science has a rather superior record to superstition when it comes to getting results.

            By the way digg, this site's session management is an absolute joke. When I CLOSE DOWN my browser, delete cookies, reopen the browser, login to a website, and it STILL tells me my session is expired and I need to refresh - then I am using a site written by talentless fools. Come on for pity's sake, login sessions are a solved problem. And yet, when I reply to a different comment - it suddenly works?
          • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1@covertbadger, apparently experiencing the same problem with comments you are:

            First off, kudos on starting a rebuttal with "you cretinous idiot". I'm not sure you have any real evidence to support your claim that I am either a cretin or an idiot (though I will not point out the redundancy of your assertion. I feel that speaks well enough for itself.)

            Second, you can teach biological and chemical facts to high school students without going into origin theories. I know you can, because, being a high school graduate, I know the difference between a prokaryote and a eukaryote, and my teacher never mentioned evolution. I'm really not sure what more you expect from a high school biology course, but apparently it requires an indoctrination to a specific side of a controversial debate or else it isn't good enough for you.

            As I said, if medical professionals believe that the theory of evolution is vital to learning practical or research medicine, let them teach it in specialty schools.

            But you want to know what I think? I think that you believe so firmly that you're right, that anyone holding to another idea, or even allowing the possibility that another idea exists, that you're an angry and hateful bigot.
          • covertbadger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Enchantrem

            I have ample evidence that you are a cretinous idiot - exhibit A is your argument in this thread. And I feel the redundancy is necessary since neither 'cretin' nor 'idiot' are quite sufficient on their own to communicate the vast yawning extent of your ignorance. Next up, evolution isn't an origin theory, it's a theory explaining the process of change - perhaps once you grasp this basic fact things will become clearer to you. And finally, whilst I bow to the lofty heights of your high school education, in the real world evolution is essential to our increasing understanding of the development of bacterial disease and the mechanisms by which bacteria become resistant to treatment. Anyone moving into higher education without understanding the basic principles of natural selection is going to suffer when trying to understand how the world works - but if you are content for all future biologists to have the same debilitating disadvantages that you seem so proud of in yourself, then so be it. Don't ever wonder why the rest of us look down on you though.
        • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'll make a deal with you Enchantrem -- when Creationism gets 99% of the biological science community behind it, I'll agree to it being taught in public schools. Until then, let's stick to teaching our kids facts, ok?
  • Shawn4168, on 10/11/2007, -35/+26Wow...what a moronic picture. I could just turn around and tell you I'm waiting for something bigger to evolve from the microscopic bacteria in that cage.
    • smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26that's not how evolution works. there's nothing that states that evolutionary forces make present day organism become bigger. also, the bacteria in the cage might very well evolve into something else bigger or smaller, but it won't happen fast enough for you to observe in your lifetime.

      you've just demonstrated the sophistry of creationist rhetoric that is rooted in a lack of scientific understanding.
      • Fafnir43, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Stop trying to confuse me with your honeyed words. Evilution and human reason are but temptations sent by Satan. Smite the heretic with lightning, o Lord! Smite him, and let him remain smoten for all eternity in thy smitingness!
        • DforSpiD, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Ha! That lightning barely killed me at all
      • b3owulf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1"that's not how evolution works"

        But creationism works by human's building cages and demanding that life be created inside of them? no one expects that god is hanging out somewhere just making new species all the time, and placing them down on earth.

        and i'm not a creationist, just someone who believes in logical arguments
        • ScottMaximus1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think it's called sarcasm dude
        • smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i don't think they're trying to "prove" that creationism is false, just demonstrating in a satirical manner how absurd the belief is. creationism is a myth by definition, it's not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested or disproven. the cage was obviously meant as a joke to mock people who believe in its scientific validity--like those who built the creationist museum for example.
      • Shawn4168, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0Thank you for stating the obvious, smackhero. My comment was a sarcastic remark pointing out the fallacy of logic in the picture. Just like you can't just build a cage and say, "evolve", you can't build a cage and tell God "create."

        This picture goes off of the assumption that God has simply "created" people into existence since the beginning of history. I've never known a creationist that would believe such a stupid theory. Every creationist believes that creation happened "in the beginning." Not after the beginning, not every Thursday, not when people told God to. It happened once. Nature took its course from there.

        You've just demonstrated the sophistry of evolutionist rhetoric that is rooted in a lack of basic logic.
        • smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2um, the cage isn't trying to prove anything about creationism since it's not a testable hypothesis. the cage simple demonstrates the irrationality behind believing in religious myths as scientific facts/theories. treating creationism as a scientific theory is as absurd as the notion of the cage.
    • SJKat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Actually, if you look carefully enough, you can see something in the cage that is traveling at a _very_ high speed. According to my calculations, it would be a zebra at about 0.95c.

    • thankyousir, on 10/11/2007, -21/+5I agree with Shawn. Millions of years or not, I have yet to see a jump from a non-living thing to a living organism. Digg me down and call irreducible complexity and creationism unscientific, but that is my stance.
      • FeargusMcDuff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Yup dugg down for basing your stance of incorrect science.
      • covertbadger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10@thankyousir

        And what would that prove about evolution? Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the transition from 'non-living thing' to 'living organism'. Until you understand the subject, how do you expect to hold a sensible opinion on it?
      • thankyousir, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I am not against evolution because it says species adapt and change over time, I am against it because nearly always it depends on abiogenetic hypotheses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
        • covertbadger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3No it doesn't, you fool. Abiogenesis is a completely independant theory, and nothing in the theory of evolution by natural selection is dependant on it. Disproving abiogenesis would not weaken the theory of evolution even slightly, and it is only due to your ignorance that you somehow seem to think it would. Go and educate yourself before spouting off and making yourself look stupid.
        • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Richard Dawkins is one of the leading evolutionary biologists on the planet, and he disagrees with you. Caution: reading a blog or even a single book doesn't make you an expert. Careful treading on unknown ground - as covertbadger states, you can make yourself look ignorant quite easily.
    • rebotfc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Er, This picture is meant a parody of that same ridiculous argument that Creationists use.
  • zephc, on 10/11/2007, -6/+60Logically, God put the most awesome animal in there, but the Devil took it away!
  • Nowaiman, on 10/11/2007, -15/+40If you want me to start sounding bible on you, God isn't usually one to be tempted, noob.
    • cptn_cardboard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40What if I DOUBLE DOG DARE HIM?
      • Mrnut333, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Then your thought form is incorporated into the totality of creation, analyzed, sorted, stored, and disregarded most-likely due to the incompatibility with creation's plan. I would, however, like to thank you for your work unto creation anyway.
    • Cenobite, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Is that why he had Job inflicted with boils and had his kids murdered just to prove a point?
      • Alethinos, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I think your thinking of Satan...
      • Cenobite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Sorry, I should probably have been clearer. Yes, Satan was actually the one who inflicted all that nasty ***** on Job after God *allowed* him to do it, seeing as Satan had challenged God about it.

        Since God had Satan ruin the guy's life just to win a bet, it would seem that God is, in fact, easily tempted... Or at least Satan easily tricked the old git just to have a bit of fun at poor Job's expense.
        • Zer0up, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1God also restored it all after Job passed the test. In fact, his wealth and family was multiplied and he was given extra long life.
          • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Actually, no, his family wasn't "restored" -- they were murdered. His family was killed and taken away from him forever. He got a new family - would that diminish your love for your first one, or the suffering over their loss? And as for God restoring his wealth, BFD, he had that anyway. Do you see nothing wrong with God *torturing* Job on a ***** *dare*? with murdering his family on a ***** bet? Might makes right, I guess.
    • DesuKN, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And he will attack you with SNAKES if you do so.

      Come on god. Gimme those snakes.
  • dutchdude15, on 10/11/2007, -37/+7Hey, maybe an evolutionist could put half-fish/half-lizard or an ape-man in there. I'd like to see that.
    • ruley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Archaeopteryx?
      • dutchdude15, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, [the archaeopteryx] is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx. From: straighttalk.net
        • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I see - so you are accepting evolutionary scientists as authorities on the reality of biological evolution via natural selection?

          Thanks for settling the matter for us - for a moment, there I thought you were a creationist - but that would require rejecting the authority of scientific evidence - in which case, you would have to be a hypocrite and act deceitfully - surely an unchristian sort of behavior. And a stand-up decent Christian like yourself surely would not resort to lies and trickery in order to try and make a point, would you? That's the kind of Satanic behavior us Atheistic Evilutionists engage in.....
    • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13If you want to see something on partially evolved, try a mirror.
  • rainmanbk, on 10/11/2007, -46/+8Will you be laughing when you're burning in Hell? Probably not because you'll still hate God even when you do find out he's real.
    • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16lmao. You're awesome.
    • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25LOL I love Digg cause it just show how ***** stupid people are.

      Do you came in a Mattell doll version with a string coming out of your ass?
    • gambit2121, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16I don't think you can hate God if you don't believe in him...
      • azAZ09, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18Well if the god described in the bible existed, he would be a total douche. It wouldn't be a stretch.
    • karakh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31well duh.. How could i not hate an "all powerful" being who would allow ANYONE to suffer in eternal torment, just for GENUINELY seeking the truth!
    • Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Forgot to attach that /sarcasm tag there, didn't you? I sure hope so... It was an honest mistake, right?
    • kinerry, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Hate god? what are you talking about? you think atheist are atheist because they hate god? how can you hate something that most likely does not exist?
      • diggimator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Also: the terrorists hate us for our freedoms!
    • kinerry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1double-post...
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16John 14:12-14 says you can pray for ANYTHING and you will get it, no if's, no but's, no restrictions whatsoever, yet there is not a single case of an amputee who has gotten a limb regrown. Does your god only do things that are possible for humans to do?
      • neondiet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12
        Here's another one the creationists don't get. They believe (according to Genesis) that the earth was created on the 3rd day, and the Sun, Moon and stars were created on the 4th day. So the earth is older than the Sun, Moon and Stars.

        From my research I've learned that creationists believe the earth to be no more than 6,000-8,000 years old.

        Given that we know the speed of light, and the distances between us and the stars; we know that the images (of light) we see today from far flung galaxies and stars has in many cases taken millions of years to get here. But how can that be when Genesis + Creationsists say that the earth, and therefore the same galaxies are only several thousand years old.

        Given that the bible is supposed to be written under the guidance of god, and inerrant; the physics and size of the universe and the absolute value of the speed of light prove that Genesis is *****, and written by a man who had no clue what the universe was really like. So if Genesis is junk then the whole of Christian creation is a fairy story, and the rest of it collapses like a pack of cards on a windy day.

        Ero, there is no god. Well, not a Christian god anyway.


        • Lewie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7The response from theists is that God created the light 'on it's way', so it appears as if it had been traveling for a long time. They say trees would have had growth rings too, even though they were just created.
          • neondiet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2
            Sure, you can explain away anything if you're prepared to leave the bible behind and enter the realm of fantasy. There is nothing in the bible that even hints at this.

            What you're trying to say is that god created entire galaxies in a state where they were already millions of years old; where some of them had already been ripped apart by collisions with other galaxies, and stars had already burned out, consumed themselves and collapsed; and that the light from said events had already travelled for millions of years. All so that man, living on an infinitesimally small spec of a planet would have something to see at night. Though why god created countless planets around those stars (like in our own solar system) must remain a mystery as we can't see them. Though we know that they're there from their effect on their stars.

            Again I call Rubbish! The truth is that your theists are so arrogant, so full of themselves that they have to dream up fantastic ways to justify why they are the center of the known universe, and paper over the gaping cracks in biblical creation.


        • gambit2121, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6that makes as much sense as someone making a crossword book with half of the words filled in already, just so you felt productive. I'd think god could find a better way to 'start' the light from stars.
          • neondiet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1
            --"that makes as much sense as someone making a crossword book with half of the words filled in already, just so you felt productive."--

            Yet according to Lewie (the person who replied before you) that's exactly what the "theists" believe. Nuts isn't it!

        • looselips, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well put neondiet. But do not stop at the Earth being older, without the sun being present first the earth could not have been projected into an orbit; instead, it simply would have crashed directly into the sun. The size of the sun would not simply allow a stationary object to remain frozen in its place or magically "grow" an orbit.
          It is even more sad that so many religious think "God did it, I believe it."
          Without giving it a rational question, millions accept a story as truth. Even after the different versions cause division to the point of hatred,war, and death.
          All of our current gods are stupid.
          Can someone please do a little bit of research before they make up the next one?
      • SeraphsWitness, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1You're taking that grossly out of context. There are many ideas about prayer that God lays down. One of which is that you have an honest and contrite heart.

        And to answer your question, no. God can do all. But if we're assuming God is real in the context of this question, then we're assuming He's all-knowing and all-seeing. I would then assume that since I know very little in comparison to knowing everything, I'm quite willing to trust God's reasoning. Not that I claim to know God's reasoning for not regrowing everyone's limbs.... but humor me for a moment. What would the reaction of the world be if people's limbs regrew? What if they always did? God always existed, yes? People have prayed since they knew He existed, yes? Then I suppose regrowing limbs wouldn't seem like much of a miracle anymore, would it?

        And if He did go around doing these things, don't you think that would remove the element of belief? The element of CHOICE? One of the great things about God is that He doesn't force Himself on us. He gives us the choice to follow him or not to. If it was scientifically proven that God existed, then nobody would believe in God. They would just KNOW that He exists. Just like I know tomatoes exist. I don't have to BELIEVE tomatoes exist. They just do.

        In short, I think it just comes down to whether or not you believe in God. Once you accept that belief, well I don't think you'll have any problem trusting an all-knowing God. But if God appeased every jerk who posed an offensive temptation for Him... well I think the world would be an absolutely dreadful place.

        Just pray to Him, it can't hurt, especially if He doesn't exist, right? Ask for the truth. I mean, you have to be willing to seek the REAL TRUTH, whether its God or no God. Even if it costs you your friends, your family, your reputation. If you aren't willing to sacrifice those things to find out what the truth is, well then I think you probably have too much bias to ever believe in God. It's really easy to go to Heaven. Jesus is right there, you don't even need to earn it. He earned it for you. Just pray.
        • neondiet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2
          I think what EarlofLade's referring to is a well publicised accusation that while god is supposed to heal things like cancer, brain tumors and other conditions that you can't actually see; amputee's are left out in the cold.

          We've all seen footage of events where a "healer" shouts, waves his arms and calls upon the power of the lord to heal; then taps the head of the person with an illness who promptly falls over like he's been hit with a club, only to wake up and be told that he's been healed.

          In every case the healing is of something not visible, and everyone takes it on faith that the healing was successful then moves onto the next one.

          When I was a kid I saw one of these. A girl was supposed to have one leg slightly shorter than the other and needed major surgery to put it right. The "healing" was done, and the healers declared their success, but no one dared to get out a tape measure and actually check. That would have shown a lack of faith !!

          That's where amputees come in. No tape measure needed; you would see the result right there and then, which is why we never see an amputee getting healed. There are three possible reasons for this:

          1) The healer's faith isn't strong enough. They're too afraid to fail publicly.

          2) God won't heal amputees because that takes all the mystery out of it. Ergo god is prejudice against amputees. You're better off having terminal cancer than loosing a limb cos then god will look out for you.

          3) There is no god.


        • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Just pray to Him, it can't hurt, especially if He doesn't exist, right? Ask for the truth. I mean, you have to be willing to seek the REAL TRUTH, whether its God or no God. Even if it costs you your friends, your family, your reputation. If you aren't willing to sacrifice those things to find out what the truth is, well then I think you probably have too much bias to ever believe in God. It's really easy to go to Heaven. Jesus is right there, you don't even need to earn it. He earned it for you. Just pray."

          That is intangible, and I have no way to verify if Jesus is saving me, or if I'm talking to the wall. Jesus certainly hasn't come down and verified what you say is true. I only have you telling me this. If you say that the bible tells me this, well, thereagain, i have to trust what some Jewish goat-herders wrote 2000 years ago. That is useless to me. I will not believe your religion because you tell me to, anymore than you'll believe in Islam because a Muslim walks up to you and says "pray to Allah, what could it hurt" etc. You'd want verification, just like i do.

          I have a 16 digit number on a sticky note on my desk. It's been there for years. The first person who prays to their god, and has their god tell them the number, then conveys the number to me, wins me as a permanent convert and lifelong servant to their religion. Are you up to the challenge, or will you be like other Christians and make excuses for why your god was willing to perform miracles for other unbelievers in the past, but not for me?
    • Dauvin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1To quote someone (I did a rudimentary search for who exactly, but no luck) "I have nothing against God; it's his fan club I can't stand"

      That pretty much sums up my feelings about God
  • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24"It's the liberal media and impressionable minds. The media presents the material, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon to promote it. It gets rather old, and is the leading cause as to why I don't visit Digg as much as I used to."

    But yet you find the time to post and bitch....
    • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3Maybe you should spend less time bitching, and more time learning how to click the 'reply' button.
  • azAZ09, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8ape-man? look in the mirror.
  • joemofo214, on 10/11/2007, -8/+68haha, If I were god, I would put a man-bear-pig in there
  • Pheter, on 10/11/2007, -15/+17Uhmm. Why did this get dugg to the front page?!
    • expat001, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9because you don't own the site? maybe you should try a little harder kido
      • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -7/+0I don't know if that's *why* it got dugg to the front page :P

        I think it's because hating on religion is all the rage nowadays.
        • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So your argument is that "creationism = religion"? That one cannot exist without the other?

          You sure you want to hang your faith on such a thin peg?
    • FunkyNuts, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Looking at all the other crap that bubbles up to the top here, do you really need to ask?
    • phoenix78, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0because it has to do with God not existing...duh

      Here at Digg, People Digg Burying God
  • sullichin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Mirror... (the other one is extremely slow for me)
    http://www.pandafile.com/file/41566858_cage/jpg

    Awesome picture.
  • GordyMac, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18"Will you be laughing when you're burning in Hell? Probably not because you'll still hate God even when you do find out he's real." - rainmanbk
    That is great!
    • diggimator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1That's strange, your post got +12 diggs, while rainmanbk's original post got -33 diggs. Maybe people should ignore the "Reply to this" link more often.
  • Esstee, on 10/11/2007, -17/+3Well well... we find here yet another near sighted individual with a bird cage who figured out a way to complain about the state of things.
    We should put another cage next to it and call it the evolutionary one. Not much to look at either way.
    • covertbadger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7You didn't understand the point of the picture, then?
  • Yawgmoth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+38In the comments under the picture a person named Fact vs theory made an incorrect statement that is all too common. He stated that evolution was only a theory and he wouldn't believe it until it has become a law.

    A law has no more proof or acceptance then a theory does. While the words are used differently among scientists (mainly which field of science they work in), There is no scientifical hierarchy for theories. A law is a description or observation which is usually simple or mathematical in nature .(ie: Matter attracts matter. Things in motion tend to stay in motion. ) A theory is WHY that happens. (ie :Matter attracts matter because it curves space. ) Whether it is universally accepted has everything to do with the validity of the law or theory and nothing to do with it's name. from wikipedia: Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[3] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics

    see http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html if you're still confused, or ask anyone with a serious scientific background.
    • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Well put, a very sensible point. Sadly, given the nature of the picture (which doesn't really speak to the arguments that creationists use) the only thing the comments here or there will likely be good for is religion-baiting, but thanks for trying to inject some sense into the debate...
    • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Or anybody that's passed first year engineering... I don't think it takes a very serious scientific background to understand the philosophy of science and the algorithm of "theory-making".
      • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hmm... I've seen a lot of people from diverse backgrounds have trouble with this one, not just creationists. I'll readily admit that I don't have a great deal of experience dealing with engineering students, as opposed to science or humanities types, but the few that I have dealt with never struck me as being especially well versed in the philosphy of science.
    • KingBabi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You're totally right. The 'best' argument I find to be used against evolution is that it is only a 'theory,' as is the theory of relativity, the collision theory, etc. Furthermore, as seen in the comments on the site, it has been argued that because it is 'debated' among scientists (though this in it of itself is flawed). Debate proves the strength of this theory; in contrast, creationism is not debated among those who choose (ignorantly) to believe it.
  • supermanme, on 10/11/2007, -29/+14I just know I'm going to get dugg down for this, but does "Do not test the Lord, your God" mean anything? (Matthew 4:7)
    • morg666, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35Yes it means the same thing as "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
    • quentinmcalmott, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22It only is significant if you believe the book of Matthew was written by God, possibly through a human. If you think it was just written down by some guy, it means nothing.
      • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It meas nothing to you, It means nothing to me, but it does mean something to creationists. To the extent that those are the people you're trying to win over to your side it i something you need to be prepred to address. Let's be honest here, the picture adresses a straw man of creationism, and evolution has an easy enough time dealing with real creationist arguments that I don't think we need to beat up straw men. It isn't meant to win people over, it is just an opportunity for evolutionist to have a little fun at the expense of creationists. If you think t is funny, fine, have a little chuckle at their expense, but supermanme is rght to suggest that the sign should mean nothing to creationists.
        • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Since in today's world creationism requires, not only an independence from logic, but a deliberate, willful, and quite challenging continuous denial of the merits of logic, the idea that a logical argument will sway a creationist, or that logical consistency is considered a virtue by creationists, is rather naive.

          To suggest that one should cater to a circular argument is foolish; humoring and tolerating poor thinking does not cure it.
        • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You may not ever get the real die-hard evangelical types, but that's not to say you can't reach out to more moderate folks, people like, say, my mom. A lot of these people learned little about evolution in school because nobody wanted to get their parents upset (even in my grade school days evolution was avoided) and don't even know much about creationism except what they got in Sunday school years back. They don't go out of their way to examine the facts because, for the most part, the details of evolution are largely irrelevant to their everyday lives. Making them out to be the butt of some joke only makes them angry and defensive. I'd agree with your statement above if you limited yourself to scientists, but for most of the world's population creationism doesn't require an independence from logic, it just about the subject enough to change long-held views that have served you well in the past.
    • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24Yep. It means that the people who invented the bible didn't want their subjects to question it.
    • brycelb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7No, it means nothing.
      • kinerry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Then stop praying, because all prayer is a test.

        You can't pray for him to do anything for you anyway, because he "works in mysterious ways" and already knows what he was going to do anyway whether you prayed or not.
        • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2It would only be a test if your faith depended on whether or not those prayers were answered. The purpose of prayer is not simply to petition god for various things, but also to give thanks for what has been received or to worship.
          • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4And a god who cares whether you give thanks or not, or whether you worship him or not, is a petty god not even worthy of human imagination.
    • nmabry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"Do not test the Lord, your God" (Mt 4:7)

      So if the hypothesis is that an intelligent agent is necessary for the creation of certain biological structures or entities, it seems that gathering any empirical evidence to investigate that claim might not align with many proponents' religious views. Am I way off?
      • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"I refuse to prove that I exist, because proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing"

        "But, isn't the Babel fish a dead giveaway?"

        "Oh, I hadn't thought of that."
    • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10It's called a cop-out. God being unable to be tested is a necessity of religion that purports a non-existent god.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7And what about John 14:12-14? It says you can pray for anything you want and you will get it. No restrictions.
    • gambit2121, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3'do not test the lord, your god' means nothing to me if he is not my 'lord' or 'god'. All I see there is a way to weasel out of any possible questions about your religion.
  • ToastyMallows, on 10/11/2007, -25/+65Haha hilarious.
    I love being an Atheist!
    NO GOD!
    Digg me down. =D
    • Indyanna, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"If there were no God, there would be no atheists." - G. K. Chesterton

      Think about it. :-)
  • loganhid, on 10/11/2007, -23/+4Well I'll like science to come up with an explanation to how all this world and its glory came into existence from absolute nothing. As God is all powerful and infinite, please don't use the argument of how did God come about? - lets just assume He's always been here. Also please don't say all because science can't explain it now. doesn't mean God exist, I'm gonna take the side of Religion until science can truly satisfy me, which will never happen.

    p.s. I'll probely get dugg down for my above question.
    p.p.s. I believe scene and religion can co-exist
    • curtvdh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19"let's just assume He's always been here"

      Google for "circular argument", and try again.
    • Riffraffs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24science will never truly satisfy you because you've closed your mind to any argument other then a god created everything.
    • romistrub, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Sir, I believe your English broke.

      Also, the human limitations of being able to comprehend only causal relationships meets its match with the origins of the universe. One needs to discard such notions of time if you want to understand the nature of the beginning (if there was one). I would rather try and build my knowledge than lean on the God crutch.
    • Godlike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Who are you really, that you need something to 'satisfy' you? You just need someone to fill that gaping hole in you with lies and orders about what you should do? Try figuring things out for yourself for a change.
    • paidhima, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10If God has always existed, then why can't the universe have always existed? Oh yeah, because science doesn't accept that answer.

      Then again, I don't see this argument ever ending. You, and those that believe as you do, have found your answer: God. You don't require further explanation, because that *is* the explanation. Science, on the other hand, is not happy with a "well, it's always been here" or "because it is" answer. Science, by its very nature, questions everything - always. Religion, by its very nature, questions nothing.
    • kinerry, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13You made many faulty presuppositions here.

      Also, science can't satisfy you? Then shut off your computer, turn off your tv, take off your shoes, stop paying your power bill, stop paying your water bill, stop driving your car, stop going to the hospital, stop using plastics...basically stop doing anything if science doesn't satisfy you, because almost everything we have now is a product of science. If you would prefer to live in the dark ages where god could take care of you, go for it. I'd prefer cable tv over god anyday.
      • UsuI, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0even Oprah... do you prefer Oprah to god?

        • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yes. Oprah gives out cars and doesn't smite people. What's not to like?
    • Dralha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Colliding branes, multiverses, bouncing universe - science has been attempting to come up with all sorts of possibilities for explaining the origin of the universe - without having to resort to m*a*g*i*c.
    • UsuI, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ever heard of Russell's Celestial Teapot?
    • Syntaxis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Well, loganhid, we're not here to satisfy you. You believe in whatever god you were taught to believe in and you don't dislike it. You accept the lack of evidence because you've been told to just swallow it up from the minute you could understand the language your parents speak. Now, you are emotionally unable to make a logical decision in your life and throw away that ancient fairy-tale book you call "the bible".

      You fail to acknowledge your own psychological need for religion, without it you would have gaping holes in your life. Suddenly you'd feel you gave up on all your dead loved ones, who are suddenly no longer enjoying eternal bliss, but are just rotting away or burned to ashes. Suddenly, your life seems pointless: you're nothing more than an evolved ape with bigger brain capacities than the other life forms on this planet. You are born, reproduce, die, and your children will follow the same fate.

      Then there is the origin of life. You say: "it's god". Someone else halfway across the world says: "ALLAH" and blows herself up in the middle of an innocent crowd. You both think you're right. You both think the other is wrong. In the end you'll both end up dead, like everyone else.

      Which leads us to "what comes next" - I say nothing comes next. You can't accept that. Again, it'll mean your loved ones that have passed away are gone forever. Even your childhood pets! Again.. it's psychological. You have a need for an invisible friend. You've been raised to need it. You've been raised to not question it.

      5000 Years ago, people like you would be sacrificing 8-year-old virgins to the high-priest or village-elders because the crops were bad this year: god was angry and sent the grasshoppers along to eat it all. Nowadays, we kill the damn bugs en-masse to save our food. 5000 Years ago a lightning storm required the sacrifice of some cattle - today, with scientific help, we not only predict lightning storms, but render them relatively harmless.

      In conclusion: if it were for you, we'd still be the ignorant monkeys you deny we once were. Thankfully there are also rational people who don't take everything for granted, think about stuff, come up with improvements and write it down for peer-review. It's called science. It's how your keyboard, computer and monitor came to be. That wasn't god. Those were just people. Smart people, who became smart because they read up on stuff other smart people wrote before them.
    • azAZ09, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You wrote: "Well I'll like science to come up with an explanation..."--So would scientists. That is why they do what they do. They love to look for explanations of how world is. Scientists love for their ideas to be challenged and revised in light of EVIDENCE. Scientists do not oppose religion or god, but want to describe how the world works as it is. They simply do not accept the supernatural storybook explanation. Instead they test debate, evaluate, experiment, share information, and verify ideas. Scientists do not propose to know the universe erupted from nothingness, they search for the truth it

      "and its glory"-- (usually people say "in its glory"). What is the "Glory" to which you refer. Which part specifically. Do you mean "Glory" as in a magnificence or overall feeling of grandeur the thought of something large complex and intricate imparts to you? If that is the case then you as human are attaching the significance to the world you see around you. I kind of like it too, but I'm not sure i would use "Glory" maybe curiousness or quirkiness.

      "As God is all powerful and infinite"-- If god is all powerful, can he create something he cannot destroy? If you answer "yes", then god is actually limited because there is something god cannot do. If you answer "No", then god is limited because there is something god cannot do. The concept of "all-powerful" is self-defeating.

      "I'm gonna take the side of Religion until science can truly satisfy me, which will never happen." vs. "p.p.s. I believe scene and religion can co-exist" So are you saying you will never believe in science and therefore never understand it, but you believe that you can adapt your religion around the facts?
      • Enchantrem, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I just have to jump on this one, sorry...
        "can he create something he cannot destroy?" Destruction defies the laws of physics, nothing is ever destroyed. There is only ever the re-organization of matter and energy.
        So, we have to ask ourselves, is God working within the laws he set up, as he so often does? If that is the case, then He will neither create nor destroy anything, merely re-organize matter and energy to suit his will.
        If he has decided to act outside of the laws he created, as he is wont to do, then the idea of creating and destroying anyTHING, in the sense we know of, becomes preposterous. If God chooses to act without regard for the physical laws he created to govern our existance, then whatever he does happens, for all intents an purposes, outside of our existance, and the idea of a THING breaks down.

        If you want to know if God is capable of haxoring creation to put in new matter or energy entirely, or remove matter or energy entirely, then yes, he is entirely capable of doing so. However, if you want to know if he can create something, ANYTHING, that he cannot also un-create, then the answer is obviously no, and using a lack of ability to un-create to judge his potency is equally preposterous.

        Just cause you thought up a clever question doesn't mean the All Knowing doesn't have the answer, even if I don't.
        • azAZ09, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Nothing is ever destroyed, there is only ever the re-organization of matter and energy" -- So you're admitting God didn't create the universe "he" just re-organized it from the bits and pieces lying around ... Oh wait, where did those come from? Who created those? What is god made of? The original post was making a case for an infinite, "all-powerful" god. I was simply pointing out the logical fallacy of "All powerful" and infinite.

          If this giant faerie is infinite as the original poster postulates, can this invisible man-like thing you worship end its own existence? If it could not, it would not be "all-Powerful". If it could it would no longer be infinite.

          OK. Since you are hung up on the concept of create and destroy, let me simplify. Can this invisible magical creature you speak of tie a knot in the string of his giant blessed golden sandal--re-organizing it--in a way that is impossible for even "he" cannot again untie (re-organize)? Can he do something he cannot undo? Either answer sets a limitation that defies the mistaken concept of "all-powerful". I am not judging potency but criticizing those who judge based on supposition by pointing out the fallacy in the argument they present.

          As far as judging god's potency-- those who describe him as "all-powerful" are already setting up the judgment. Again, I'm merely criticizing that unfounded belief.
    • gambit2121, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8People used to think the world was flat, the sun was pulled across the sky by the sun god's chariot, that one race can be superior to another, that the Earth was the center of the universe, and you believe that god created it. People have always had ways of explaining things they can't understand. At least be open minded enough to consider alternatives.
    • KalvinCoolEdge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Where is the disconnect that allows you to believe that God was created from nothing(or has existed forever) but not the universe? Whats the difference?
    • ranalicious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"scene and religion" = christians on myspace? discuss!
  • EvaMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6I'm all for Evolution and think that creationism should be no where near the Science class.

    But I believe in a higher power (God, Allah, Buddha, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Whatever) and stuff like this just pisses me off... what good does this do to the world or anybody, it's insulting to those with faith for unbelievers to basicaly order their God to create something to prove he exists.

    And on the other side of the coin... Why is it that religious nut-bar's have to dismiss everything that counteracts their religion even when all the facts are right under their nose?

    The world is crazy and we're all just as sane.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4You believe in 2000+ year old goat herder and camel driver scifi? WOW. Why don't you take a critical look at the bible, it's authors and what not? The books is choke full of errors, absurdities and downright lies, the god characterized is a sadist, a baby killer, racist and a master of genocide. Wow, just wow.
      • gmprunner, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Congratulations in not realizing that the Bible is a book full of fictional stories ("parables"). But don't worry, it's a mistake Christians make too. LOTS of them, actually.
        • EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5So, you agree that it is fantasy from start to finish? great!
    • Bhima, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3While you are welcome to have your own beliefs; Buddhists do not subscribe to the i