What is Digg?121 Comments
- Tsen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+81If evolution were really true, the website would've adapted to the increased traffic!
- fantasmacanino, on 10/12/2007, -20/+90BUT BUT EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY!!1
- BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -28/+67RABBLE RABBLE GOD MADE EVERYTHING RABBLE ETC
- scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+46You can't possibly be that retarded.
humerus? - xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38@McNostril
I'll bite
"1. Life can never arise from non-living matter. So, where is it that we came from. A large explosion?"
We've already proved that non-living matter can in the right circumstances provide most of the amino acids needed for life. Dr. Stanley Miller used some electricity and what we believe would have been present millions of years ago to artificially reproduce what would have been in the "primeval soup". Read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeval_soup
As you may see the Miller Urey experiment didn't provide all the amino acids we expect to be required for life as we know it today but assuming that God has something to do with it because of our ignorance on the matter is a good way to get stuck in the same pattern as believing that the earth is at the center of the universe. Read more on the experiment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
2. We evolved from some primordial ooze right? Where are your transitional half-loogie men? (Or any transitional species for that matter, shouldn't there be thousands, if not millions?) Where is your fossil record? (No fakes now)
God of gaps once again. The theory of evolution is a well understood set of rules that explain how an aspect of the universe runs. It's not a law because it's not used to predict like we can with the laws of gravity. However a theory is an accepted fact and whenever we find a new fossil we get even more evidence to corroborate.
The transitional steps between us and the common ancestor we share with the chimpanzee (btw they have more genetic mutations than we do with our common ancestor... making them more evolved than us) are most likely destroyed by the forces of nature. Ask yourself how often you find the remains of dead animals when you walk and nature and it's not hard to understand that only in rare instances will nature preserve traces of beings millions of years older than we are.
3. All major groups of life popped up at one time. What does this sound like?
Obviously more pleasing than the sound of someone being disingenuous.
4. Take one part out of the eye and it is worthless. If evolution is a series of improving mutations, what led up to my eye?
While Darwin himself mentioned the eye as a difficult thing to explain with his theory he only did so to please the clergy. He was certain that new discoveries would lead to explaining the eye. Something that Richard Dawkins did very well in Climbing Mount Improbable showing how different animals with even the crudest of "eyes" could still benefit from only seeing where light came from.
Furthermore most of the components inside the eyes are already cells that make up other parts of the human body.
5. Which of these evolved first?
a. The digestive system, the food, the appetite, the ability to find food, digestive juices, or the bodies resistance to its own juices.
Look at the very small. They provide plenty of great answers to this regard. Once again I'll redirect you to Richard Dawkin's book Climbing Mount Improbable.
b. The drive to reproduce, or the ability.
The ability. Think of germs. Do they have a drive to reproduce or is it just programmed into them?
c. The lungs, or the throat, or the mucus membrane to protect them.
I don't know but it is a very interesting question and you are right to ask it. Perhaps if you studied the subject in depth you'd be the one teaching us something new.
d. The plans or the insects that live on and pollinate them
Most likely the plants.
e. Bones, ligaments, muscles, or tendons.
Most likely muscles.
f. The immune system or the need for it
Define the immune system.
And don't say they came when the need arose, because an organism would not be able to survive without the proper bodily functions
Why not? Neither the harmful germs or the animals would have suddenly arrived in it's current form. They would have evolved from environmental and competitive pressures giving rise to benefits or disadvantages from having mutations to their next generations.
6. If the human body was thrown together by chance why is it that our supercomputers cant even begin to compare to the brain of a newborn?
It can certainly compare. The human brain is a massively parallel system whereas the computer is linear. For this reason AI is only really starting to get interesting because we are now starting to use more multiprocessor machines or grids of computers working together. Computers will become closer and closer to the human brain with time and with the speed at which a computer can calculate stuff compared to humans of any age we're in for some interesting times... perhaps even in our lifetime.
7. When did single celled organisms become multi-celled?
God of the gaps once again. I'm assuming around 1.5 billion years ago but as to how that happened I'm afraid I don't know yet. As was customary to explain diseases as evil spirits or possessions we now know better and realize that using God to explain those was... well stupid. It's sad to see you fall in the same trap after such a rich history of examples.
8. When did fish change to amphibians
Around 400 million years ago... give or take 50 million years.
9. Amphibians to reptiles
10. Reptiles to birds
All of these are very different internally
Huh??? Even our brain has remnants of the reptilian brain. Fight or flight mechanism? Adrenaline... all inside reptiles, birds, mammals, etc... Why do they share so much DNA and organs if they are so different? Even on a cell basis they share almost everything with all living organisms. Even we have some reptilian DNA remnants.
Instead of assuming that those questions cannot be answered how about asking yourself how they can be answered? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+391. Life can never arise from non-living matter. So, where is it that we came from. A large explosion?
Origin of Life http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
4. Take one part out of the eye and it is worthless. If evolution is a series of improving mutations, what led up to my eye?
Really? So when I say that worms have light receptors, they're useless? Or that octopii have very basic eyes, they're useless are well?
5. Which of these evolved first?
Huh? Again go pick up a good biology book because its all in there.
6. If the human body was thrown together by chance why is it that our supercomputers cant even begin to compare to the brain of a newborn?
Chance? You obviously have no idea what evolution is.
"8. When did fish change to amphibians, 9. Amphibians to reptiles, 10. Reptiles to birds"
Transitional fossils http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
I'm not about to educate someone who's too lazy to go read up on this themselves. Go to talkorigins.org all your absurd arguments have been answered many times before. - AlphaEta, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42@six: "But from the posts I see already you go ahead and go back to your simplistic, delusional thinking and don't worry about intelligent discussions."
So are you implying that "intelligent discussion" entails repeating the same worn-out argument (macro- vs. micro-evolution) that the creationist hacks have been spouting all over the internet for years?
I'm open to all opinions, but why should I believe some pawn who isn't smart enough to come up with their own ideas? I'll tell you what, please chime in when you start thinking for yourself.
Oh yeah... your little "DNA can't be added" argument makes you look like an idiot! Those of us who took biology in high school know better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication - CletusJones, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38Wow! Thank you Baby Jesus, for intelligently designing Borneo for us!
- toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30Mcnostril
OMG! YOU WIN! YOU HAVE CONVINCED ME THAT GOD MADE EVERYTHING AND THAT SCIENCE IS FALSE! I HAVE NOW SEEN THE ERROR IN MY OBSERVING AND LOGICAL REASONING! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
/now that you have seen the sarcasm and mocking I will turn caps lock off - canon66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21@six: Do you have any clue what conditions, not to mention the huge amount of time, necessary in order for a fossil of a creature to be formed? It's a pretty damn amazing bit of chance that we have the fossils we do. That ***** about an incomplete fossil record proving anything about macroevolution is just that, *****, it has no place in an intelligent conversation about evolution.
Go read the Origin of Species, Darwin explained the erratic fossil record 150 years ago, it's in chapter 6 in the first few pages. Next time come up with a better argument against evolution. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26@McNostril: Those are inconsequential questions. You show your lack of basics of evolution with your ridiculous addition of abiogenesis, and cosmology with evolution. Oh yes, all those questions have been answered. Go pick up a good basic biology book.
Nice cut and paste...did you really think of those yourself? - sparks333, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Sure evolution is just a theory, but so is gravity, and it seems to work just peachy.
- Mexrocker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@ McNostril
wow, you really need to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with YOUR point of view.... I am agnostic and I am tolerant of other people, but I am not tolerant of stupidity... you're just being a troll now.
I'm sure its easier to believe that God just created everything and POOF! everything magically appeared. If it is easier to believe we came from God, what created God? and where did that which created God come from? and so on...
There are just some things we may never find out, but we can come pretty damn close. So far, evolution shows more evidence of being true while creationism shows nothing at all. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@Kunta
Do you bring up the President at funerals, Bar mitzvahs, and car auctions too? - ridgelawrence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@McNostril
God of the Gaps, eh?
So may I ask you... What do YOU think happened? Adam and Eve were just created by the god (that happened to be there) and all their offspring were having crazy incest parties until what we now know as humanity? Its just plain silly.
You just sound like all the other creationists... Ill-informed. - ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Contrary to popular belief amongst creationists, macroevolution and microevolution is the same thing, evolution. Those small observed changes result in big changes over time.
- TheKingOfHell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I wouldn't worry. There is still a lot of time for humans to continue evolving and someday creationists will become endangered and die out. Remember that in the past the Ku Klux Klan was a major political force and now it is a fringe group of lunatics. Someday Evolution deniers will be ridiculed and seen as relics of the past.
I hope to see that within my lifetime, if not,my children will see it in theirs, but it will happen. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Creationism AND Macroevolution are both religous concepts."
Go look up the definition of religion because you're wrong.
"There are just as many logical arguments that refute macroevolution as there are arguments for it."
Please state those 'logical' arguments because most of what I seen so far is *****.
"As for creationism, well... we all know that's completely faith-based and can never be proven or disproven."
Another ***** statement. Creationism makes claims. These claims have been refuted.
"We can see survival of the fittest in action every day, but the tree of life can't be proven. You can try to determine the age of the earth and of fossils all you want, but it won't work."
Again, you make claims with no evidence to back it up. You claim logic when you're not even using it.
"Carbon dating is based on several assumptions."
You no know little to nothing about radioactive dating. Do you think carbon dating is the only processed used? Do you think we don't know the limitations of every single test we use? Do you think we haven't calibrated our equipment using nuclear reactors, ice cores, tree rings etc.?
"People believe in macroevolution because it makes sense to them."
Ummm..no because it is backed up by evidence.
"Both sides are ***** idiots because there is no concrete evidence one way or the other... only faith, assumptions, and easily misinterpretable data."
Ummm...wrong.
"People who claim that macroevolution is fact are just as retarded as people who claim that creationism is fact."
Ummm...go read a little. Please. You sound so ***** stupid.
"I know I'll probably be dugg down to a million negatives for saying something that would offend both sides, but scientifically speaking,.."
There is nothing scientific or logical from your statements so far.
"Nothing can be proven"
True. But things can have enough evidence to back up the possibility of a hypothesis. Go read up some Epistomology.
"it's all conjecture and faith, based on observation and logic."
Go look up the definition of faith. And go look up what the definition of Science is and what the Scientific Method is as well because you obviously don't - h3nn3rs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+121. Life can never arise from non-living matter. So, where is it that we came from. A large explosion?
-Not sure where you got this idea from. Life has risen from non-living matter, theories are of chemical accidents, random diffusion anomolies etc.
2. We evolved from some primordial ooze right? Where are your transitional half-loogie men? (Or any transitional species for that matter, shouldn't there be thousands, if not millions?) Where is your fossil record? (No fakes now)
-This is a stupid question. The 'transitional species' don't exist because they were in transition, they spur off into other species, or die off. And i'm not sure where you get the transition idea from, like there was a big plan for one species to turn into another, it's a process that nature slowly develops over 100s, 1000s, 1,000,000s of years
3. All major groups of life popped up at one time. What does this sound like?
-This was when the planet had become suitable for such 'groups of life'
4. Take one part out of the eye and it is worthless. If evolution is a series of improving mutations, what led up to my eye?
-Various processes of trial and error, or rather accident/anomoly and error.
5. Which of these evolved first?
a. The digestive system, the food, the appetite, the ability to find food, digestive juices, or the bodies resistance to its own juices.
b. The drive to reproduce, or the ability.
c. The lungs, or the throat, or the mucus membrane to protect them.
d. The plans or the insects that live on and pollinate them
e. Bones, ligaments, muscles, or tendons.
f. The immune system or the need for it
And dont say they came when the need arose, because an organism would not be able to survive without the proper bodily functions
That's not true, and organism DOESN'T need any of that to survive. They came when the need arose (due to surroundings and climate usually)
6. If the human body was thrown together by chance why is it that our supercomputers cant even begin to compare to the brain of a newborn?
-Because we've evolved from whenever you seem to think we were 'thrown together'
7. When did single celled organisms become multi-celled?
-Nobody knows precisely, but probably through some anomoly, when i mention anomolies, think about all the possibilites of every single atom in the universe moving in random directions, something somewhere is gonna happen.
8. When did fish change to amphibians
-Probably when there was need for it, when the seas were shrinking or something. Look it up. And btw, they didn't just 'change'. Maybe one fish managed to grab some food from a river bank because it had strong fins? the ones who didn't have strong fins couldn't reach the food and so they didn't get stronger, and so the seperation begins, untill eventually they have legs. (Ok so this is pretty broad but you get the idea. Someone will prob insult this. but you're sad, becasue like i say i'm being very broad)
9. Amphibians to reptiles
10. Reptiles to birds
All of these are very different internally
-No they're not, they all have brains/arms/legs/spines/stomachs/eyes/mouths/digestive systems etc. These are the simple ones. I'm sure you can look it up. all these questions are answered in the most basic of evolutionary studeis.
I suggest you do some research before you spout off. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@steave: What you don;t seem to get it that Science is not a democracy. You can't debate reality and facts. Just because someone can't imagine macroevolution, string theory or the fusion reaction of a sun, it doesn't make an opposition view right. Reality is not a point of view.
Science creates models of Reality called hypothesis. It has to be testable and verifiable. Intelligent Design cannot be tested or verified. It may be fine as a philosophy but it is not science.
I'm not going to be open minded to a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in gravity. - AlphaEta, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12McNostril: I applaud your attempt to question the validity of evolution in the form of these "unique" questions.
However, you don't need us to provide the answers. Most of these questions have already been worked out in great detail (half-loogie men notwithstanding). All you need to do is put a little effort into researching them for yourself!
If you don't make an honest effort to fully understand the intricacies of life and evolution before formulating an opinion, you are selling yourself (and society) short. - dpknc84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Since 1994, more than 400 new species have been discovered on the island, including the world’s largest cockroach..."
Time to enroll in Sam's Club and start buying Raid in bulk. - w3bsmith, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Sounds like a very cool to visit. That's the only thing that makes it close to dig worthy. Lame title and summary.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
If you can read the above definition of religion and call the Scientific support of macroevolution, a religion you're obvious stupid or a troll.
"You're wrong again... sadly, the claims of creationism CAN'T be refuted. They're easily discounted as the ramblings of religious zealots and morons, but can't be scientifically debunked. When someone says "God did it" you can't disprove it because any evidence against them can be "the work of the devil" or "put that way by god to test your faith.""
No. It can't be disproved to the zealot, but it definitely can be disproven.
"As I said in my post, there is no way to make sure the calibrations and measurements are correct without making assumptions, so you obviously know nothing of the scientific method."
Right. So when a test is verified repeatedly using multiple different methods, it is still called an 'assumption'?
"The way you react to someone who points out the flaws in your belief shows your dogmatic ways."
That's because you have yet to show any logical fallacies in my beliefs. Again, you're either a troll or a philosopher wannabe because I have yet to see you use any proper logical arguments. - simg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@McNostril
A video from Richard Dawkins explaining how the eye could have evolved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4 - ejan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I've been thinking about this recently, and a good analogy I can think of is civilization. Which came first, the merchants or the consumers? Over an extremely long period of time, many things are able to slowly progress into what we see today. You can look at it and think it's too complex to have ever been very primitive, but that's just because of our limited perspective.
- daotsc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@McNostril
These questions are answered by chapter two of most evolution text books.
Here are some tips for making these questions worthless
-what is living matter?
-a organ, tissue, or cellular structure can function in various forms as it evolves through time to its current version (Stomach acids didn't necessarily start out so acidic) and subunits used in one part of the cell can be duplicated and acted upon by evolution in other parts of the cell.
-Not all dead animals become a fossil + punctuated equilibrium = punctuated fossil record (not to mention the fossil record only covers morphology)
-supper computers have trouble replicating the brain because the brain relies on chemistry to do its dirty work, supper computers need to emulate the computations that the neuron does through chemistry. that means for each neuron a computer must replicate up to 8000 connections, receptor densities at those connections, cell signaling cascade sensitivities etc. then there are 100 billion of these. comparatively your brain is the supper computer.
Here is a question for you to think about:
Can ideas evolve?
an idea can be passed from person to person creating a new copy of the idea that can be changed an altered
the more useful the idea the more likely it will be to be passed on (differentially success) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Scientific Model: Modelling refers to the process of generating a model as a conceptual representation of some phenomenon. Typically a model will refer only to some aspects of the phenomenon in question, and two models of the same phenomenon may be essentially different, that is in which the difference is more than just a simple renaming.
A model is evaluated using a utility function to yield estimates of several values:
* Ability to explain past observations
* Ability to predict future observations
* Ability to control events
* Cost of use, especially in combination with other models
* Refutability, enabling estimation of the degree of confidence in the model
* Simplicity, or even esthetic appeal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modeling - Clelland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Hey everybody, let's all LOL @ McNostril! On three.
- NoctemSaiyaku, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6McNostril
What's great about evolution is that it can be changed through the scientific method, but creationism leaves no room for questioning or change. I prefer the idea of evolution than creationism, again that's me everyone has a choice to think what they want.
"People will fight for a belief, die for a belief. It's better to have an idea, people can change an idea."
Some what from Dogma - schnitzi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4>All major groups of life popped up at one time.
Just what time is that, Liar for Jesus? No really. I want a date. - gamehunter101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/quest/borneo/about.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/quest/quest.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I never tried to put scientists and religious zealots in one heap. Just like I said to imperium: learn to read!"
Your opening statement basically did that. "Creationism AND Macroevolution are both religous concepts." It is called poisoning the well.
"I said that people who claim that speciation is A KNOWN FACT are the same as religious zealots."
Ooooh. Now you're using the proper term speciation instead of macroevolution? Great shift.
"Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that it's the most plausible concept out there,"
And this is my position. I have zero issue with changing my mind when more evidence comes out.
"but there is no way to prove that one species has ever evolved from another, it just can't be replicated in a controlled envirnment."
Using your logic of 'replicated in a controlled environment' as your gold standard, you've invalidated all of history, archeology, sociology, astronomy and all of clinical medicine. Nothing will ever be proven 100%. But you've taken an absurd position that just because something can never be proven 100% then it must be a religion. Alright, sure. My religion allows me to have 'blind faith' in the existence of black holes, schizophrenia, George Washington and the use of aspirin.
"People like imperium will argue all night without ever reading the whole thing I type... they'll just see the first sentence and digg me down. ***** sad state of affairs in digg."
I do actually read the whole thing. I digg you down because you're spewing illogical crap in the guise of being intelligent. I digg you down because you misuse terms like macroevolution. I digg you down because you act like an expert but you don't even know the basics of what you're talking about. If you don't know the basic evidence of macroevolution and speciation, then you should stop acting like you know. BTW, I'm not a biologist but at least I know what I'm talking about. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A complete redirection of my argument and you haven't refuted my argument at all. You're now just intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to bother with you anymore. Good night.
- h3nn3rs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Sure i agree, but what kinda school is going to teach the creationism and evolution of every culture and religeon? (SP?)
Better to teach science than fantasy - h3nn3rs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7There is 0 logic in creationism. Evolution can be proven, and is being so. Evolution is soaked in science, creationism is based on emotion.
Ok so Science is no Maths, but it's pretty near on.
IMO - spasms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3On the flip-side of the coin, in less than one month, Petersburg, Kentucky will hold the grand opening of its $27 million "Creation Museum" - complete with exhibits depicting dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and even went on Noah's Ark. Take a look: http://paralleldivergence.com/2007/04/28/creation-museum-madness/
- aaaaaakash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just saw these in "Planet Earth" the mind-blowing mini-series which aired last year in the UK and now airing on Discovery in the US.
- tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Only with worse narration making it all seem less impressive.
- kikuchiyo11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm sure you're being specious but:
Creationists can't die out: it's an idelogy. A stupid one to be sure, but there's one born every minute. Someone raised to parents who believe in evolution will eventually come to see creationism as valid. These idelogical changes from generation to generation are common.
Stupid people are having more children then educated ones. There's a pretty strong correlation between smaller family size and higher education levels. If ideologies could be transmitted genetically, they would be winning. - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ideologies CAN die out by being regarded as relics as thekingofhell put well. Although there is a bit sarcasm in his post he's eventually right. Ideologies as many other social structures evolve, our society -at large- as well, not in the slow pace of Darwinian evolution but in a lot more frantic pace. In fact your Ku Klux Klan example is very well put since that's exactly what happened to their ideology, it didn't adapt to the new -more complex- way of things and became a sad minority and eventually their ideology is dying out.
The same happened with every inefficient social structure of the past, our society is a living organism as well and undergoes it's own evolution and -of course- natural selection has a central part to it. I think we already observe such a swift shift of social structures from theocracy to secularism 500 years ago and now -the last 40 years- from mainstream theocracy to mainstream secularism, more and more people question religion as the social climate changes and they have to adapt to the new evidence coming from logical thought and new scientific findings. - OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14This is simply another test of our faith by the Good Lord.
Clearly, it is His Will that Borneo must be nuked. - obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Science is not incompatible with religious belief.
Creationism is not incompatible with evolution.
Pope John Paul II's view: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
And he also said: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." - luckynas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4sadly some retards decide to cut down those nice rain forests in borneo
:( - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"For crying out loud, back off imperium!"
Why? He's making an absurd claim, I'm refuting that claim.
"It's OBVIOUS that stevealford is talking about "macroevolution" as defined by creationists, not scientists. Just as creationists attempted to hijack the word theory to mean "just a guess," so too have they tried to warp the meaning of macroevolution to their liking."
Nope. He's using macroevolution exactly as how ID people use it. He doesn't know what he's talking about but he's acting like he is.
"I'm afraid your lack of objectivity makes it painfully obvious that you have received little formal training as a scientist."
Then you'd be wrong. I'm very objective in my approach to any studies. My issue with steve is he's misinformed, poorly educated, stupid or lying but he's acting like an expert.
"One example (of many): how can you possibly believe that scientific observations (e.g. radioisotope dating) aren't based on a set of assumptions?"
I know well enough there are many assumptions used in science, math life etc. My issue is he is 'poisoning the well' by insinuating that scientist are assuming things willy nilly without taking anything else into consideration. It is the same tactics I've seen Creationist use many times. It is a tactic of making scientist look like they lie or make things up.
Many of these observations are backed up by objective calibration of the tests. If radio argon dating is backed up by a nuclear reactor test that shows the decay rate in a controlled environment or if my test is shows the exact dating to the exact century of a specific tree ring or the explosion of Pompeii's volcano then how can anyone criticize something he seems completely ignorant about? - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1" Is it right from a scientific standpoint to suppress another point view that has great scientific validity and is supported by many scientists throughout the world?"
What scientifically valid viewpoint is being supressed? - aaaaaakash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1100% agreed. thank goodness for torrents and Mr. David Attenborough.
- tybris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"There are just as many logical arguments that refute macroevolution as there are arguments for it."
You just made that up...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=macroevolution - jingwei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1site is down... how come it gets so many diggs?
anyone got a link or mirror? - jingwei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1can you now?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is