What is Digg?279 Comments
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The gaps in the fossil record are obviously there because The Almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster decided that it should be that way.
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. - Kirtan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
-Dr. Colin Patterson - cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Remember, people who say something is just a "theory", have little
understanding of how science works, what a "theory" is, or how much
of a tool they make of themselves by spouting unrelated nonsense. - cptpike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"But Hypersapien, that is what datagods religion is all about... Telling other people what, and how to think. And if they don't conform, kill/banish/ostracize/ridicule them."
Actually, that sounds more like comments and forums on the internet than religion. - shultzy055, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3let the flamewars begin...
- AttroPheed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Very informative stuff. Too bad the people that need to read it most run away covering their ears.. er eyes?
- dravidian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I dont know why this is a big deal to everyone. Personally, I believe that God created life and that evolution is part of that creation. People who think that evolution and belief in God rule each other out are falling for the propaganda thats being hurled around by people.
- user43, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Evolution has been proven time and time again. "Micro-evolution" at least has been. There is a reason why you have to keep taking your anti-biotics until you run out. There is also a reason why anti-bacterial soaps have to change their formulas once in a while. Some bacteria are naturally resistant to the current formulas, so they survive. They adjust to their environment. During the black plague period in Europe, around 1/3 of the people died. Many of those who survived were naturally resistant to the illness. Again, they adjusted to their environment and had offspring.
Remember, evolution does NOT, I repeat, does NOT deal with the origin of the universe. The "something coming from nothing argument" is not even remotely close to what we're discussing here.
There are no "gaps" in the fossil record; gap being 200,000 years without a speciment. This is easily verifiable.
I noticed that a very big part of this flame war among uneducated people is simply not true. Instead of arguing about something you don't truly understand (both pro and anti), pick up a biology book or a Bible and read. It's a lot of work but it's worth it. - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Erg. Stupid 'Theory' crap. Theory doesn't mean what you think it means. It seems to me that there has been a concerted effort to belittle and sideline science for quite a long time, probably for many reasons. I think the worst damage is the watering down of what the word theory means in science.
For instance Dictionary.com gives us
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
please note in 1 'especially one that has been repeatedly tested'.
1 and 6 are VERY different things. The naysayers of evolutionary theory use the word as defined by 6. The scientists use definition 1. It is dishonest and evil to purposefully confuse the two when trying to discuss the veracity of evolutionary science. - breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Anyone who can't see that dinosaur bones were obviously buried underground by God 5000 years ago when he created the earth in order to test our faith is just a retard.
- vodkamattvt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Please, people need to understand what science is and the nature of truth. In science, NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN, ONLY DISPROVEN. Look to epistomology of David Hume please. Gravity is just a theory that fits our data, tomorrow it could reverse, who knows.
Also, saying that you are waiting for the gaps to be filled in and then believing in ID or some other form because of gaps is the fallacy of ignorance. Its a logic fallacy, coming from just because something is not known, therefore something else is true. This does not make sense .. just think about it. - mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Evolution helps us understand OURSELVES in a real, meaningful way that helps us with everything from medicine to sociology. Intelligent Design does not."
laugh at that - J_Omega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ datagod who said : "Why is it ridiculous and idiotic to believe that an intelligent force greater than our own created the universe and all the laws that govern it?"
It isn't.
It is ridiculous and idiotic to believe that you can demonstrate that scientifically, as the ID proponents claim they can, through analogy and by calling things _too_ complex to be worth studying.
It is ridiculous and idiotic to claim you've got any sort of scientific evidence that you/we WERE designed.
There quite well could be "an intelligent force greater than our own [who] created the universe and all the laws that govern it." However, how does that discount evolutionary theory? God (call it what you mean) could've started the Big Bang in THE perfect way so that _apparently_ random fluctuations gave rise to the diversity of life and the wondrous workings of the universe in such a way that God is perfectly hidden from us.
@ zmoney : Weird. Is it true that more and more people lack wisdom teeth? I'm missing mine. Heck, I'm naturally missing nine adult teeth in total - still got some baby teeth (I'm in my early 30's) with no adult teeth to replace 'em. - Braamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Faith in science, and faith in religion are both exactly that... Faith.
To have faith in science is to trust in common consensus, and believe that science itself evolves, due to its own self critical nature. Any good scientist will tell you his worldview is merely a snapshot of what currently known evidence supports.
To have faith in religion on the other hand is to be entirely devoid of self criticism, any deviation from the dogma, in its original form, would signify its inconsistency, rendering all of its proclamations fallible.
Science has failed to provide any reasonable evidence for human purpose. Religion provides human purpose at the expense of critical thought. This I believe to be the key element of separation between these two worlds.
I would like to believe that religion will eventually yield to common sense, but I find it difficult when the religious are flying planes into buildings, torturing prisoners for information, gang-raping innocent women for the crimes of their families, and unnecessarily taking countries to war, all in the name of god. - BigmasterJay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
Just thought I would stir the pot a little. - cptpike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Besides that, seems pretty solid to me. A lot more plausible than some magical being poofing us out of thin air."
Right, more logical. Try this on for size. In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded. - Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@J Omega: Evolution is only an assault on Christianity because Christians make it so (Hehe Make it so).
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3All of you here calling yourselves Christian are pathetic. I am one of the few True Christians left. If you want to believe all these new ideas then you are all going straight downstairs. As for me, I believe only what the Church has decreed. If you believe that the earth revolves around the sun then you will surely burn in a lake of fire.
- forgeflow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Evolution is not "just a theory." If you would take the time to actually look into it, you will find a solid scientific framework explains all of the evidence we have on hand, perfectly fits a rational view of the Earth and its history, and is the foundation of all of the biological sciences. There is nothing else that can come close and fit the facts in the fossil record, in provable science behind medical research, genetic studies, etc. It is misinformed, wishful thinking at best that dismisses Evolution as a "mere theory" and displays not only an appalling lack of scientific education, but also a fundamental problem with critical thinking skills.
The most useful part of any scientific theory is not to explain why things are, it is to predict the outcome of future experiments and provide a stable framework of knowledge to lead us to correct interpretation of new observations. Evolution has done this time and again - it informs so much of biological science, and acquisition of new knowledge, that it is one of most useful analytical tools we have to evaluate new ideas and integrate new observations. Creationism is entirely useless as a scientific tool because it does none of these things. - J_Omega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How it happened" by Isaac Asimov
My brother began to dictate in his best oratorical style, the one which has the tribes hanging on his words.
"In the beginning," he said, "exactly fifteen point two billion years ago, there was a big bang and the Universe--"
But I had stopped writing. "Fifteen billion years ago?" I said incredulously.
"Absolutely," he said. "I'm inspired."
"I don't question your inspiration," I said. (I had better not. He's three years younger than I am, but I don't try questioning his inspiration. Neither does anyone else or there's hell to pay.) "But are you going to tell the story of the Creation over a period of fifteen billion years?"
"I have to," said my brother. "That's how long it took. I have it all in here," he tapped his forehead, "and it's on the very highest authority."
By now I had put down my stylus. "Do you know the price of papyrus?" I said.
"What?" (He may be inspired but I frequently noticed that the inspiration didn't include such sordid matters as the price of papyrus.)
I said, "Suppose you describe one million years of events to each roll of papyrus. That means you'll have to fill fifteen thousand rolls. You'll have to talk long enough to fill them and you know that you begin to stammer after a while. I'll have to write enough to fill them and my fingers will fall off. And even if we can afford all that papyrus and you have the voice and I have the strength, who's going to copy it? We've got to have a guarantee of a hundred copies before we can publish and without that where will we get royalties from?"
My brother thought awhile. He said, "You think I ought to cut it down?"
"Way down," I said, "if you expect to reach the public."
"How about a hundred years?" he said.
"How about six days?" I said.
He said horrified, "You can't squeeze Creation into six days."
I said, "This is all the papyrus I have. What do you think?"
"Oh, well," he said, and began to dictate again, "In the beginning-- Does it have to be six days, Aaron?"
I said, firmly, "Six days, Moses."
--------------------------------------
I'm done here. I'm either preaching to the (scientific) choir, or to the uninterested who have their hands covering their iPod earbuds (set at maximum Fundamentalist volume.)
Besides, this no-threading stuff is causing page-reloads to take way to long.
Feel free to respond or ignore or flame on. I don't have the time to continue discussion with those who wish to make claims that they cannot/will not adaquately back up.
Good luck to anyone who does! - Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I am not trying to make an argument, but to state the things in which we really don't understand. I am neither saying a designer was present or fallible, but rather, what are we? In the grander scheme of things?"
We're a self-aware machine designed to facilitate the replication of genes. - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3datagod, what the frak are you gibbering on about now? Evolutionary theory SAYS NOTHING about wether or not there is a god.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One of the major problems with ID is that it makes the argument that some things are too complex to have evolved. Complexity implies design, they say. Of course, that begs the question of who or what led to the design of this designer?
- drseth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Evolution is easy - ergo:
http://embol.us/uploaded_images/evolution-734948.PNG - ZMoney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I evolved to not have wisdom teeth...does that mean we're getting dumber??
This is an interesting topic actually...why would more and more people be born w/o wisdom teeth? It's not like our DNA knows that we're pulling them out or people w/ wisdom teeth are dying/not producing offspring (i.e. natural selection). So, there it is...why are less and less people being born w/ wisdom teeth? - markbaltes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2datagod brings up some interesting points i must say.
- Vector713, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i love this article, one of my favorite's so far. Finally, there's actually a viable argument here, with people making viable statements, with the exception of the few who have made immature, and irrelevant comments, i'm impressed. what intrigues me the most, though, is the fact that i know this is an argument that will never have resolution. for there will always be people in the defense of God, and there will always be people that think that they are as far as it gets, that THEY, being fallible humans, have everything figured out, and that there is NO WAY that miracles, or God, or ANYTHING higher than themselves, or out of their grasp, could ever exist.
- jakkyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2truchas - I don't remember Christ saying that he was another God.....
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everytime Tngnt says Augustine of Hippo I can't help but laugh.
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank "God" I have an evolved brain. I love contradictions weeeeee.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I happen to enjoy arguing with brick walls. The echoes are lovely.
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1vuke - ahahahaha
- truchas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK Jakkyl,
let's take that into effect./ How many time has a high rise official blocked you fro, your true agenda. And in effect how many time has that agenda been obtrusive to other around you? Only to find out the first doorway was evil and we should have paid attention to G~d's commandments to begin with, only to realize that later on, through the fault of the Catholics that we were putting G~d's own ideals throughout the ringer because we thought what He was asking for was too harsh, so we put our own ideals in front of him (by following a false idol, which he stated was wrong to do) and wished the best for all.
Do you really think the devil is not smart enough to do something like this? Did you not read G~d's intentions and plans? That is according to the OT?? Do you not understand when G~d tells his people that there will be many false idols? Do you not realize that you fell for one of them? - vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1J_Omega - The you have to remember that christians are the only ones for which the numbers matter. Most other religions just plain don't count because it isn't important. But for the christians, it is about winning (a little vanity perhaps?).
For an example of how the numbers dont add up, take the Chinese. They are 95% Daoist (Taoist) or Buddhist. 95% of 1.3 Billion. Look at your numbers again, and try and find that 1.1 billion people. Somehow those numbers, compiled by christians no doubt, are sorely under represented.
And also, there is more in common between Budhism and Hinduism than there is between, say, LDS and Baptist. So why are things selectively grouped together? To skew the numbers into what they want you to see no doubt.
"There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics."
And I dont give links for a reason. That reason being, that you can find a link somewhere to support ANY point of view. If someone really is interested, they can probably find 100 links for, and 100 links against whatever I have to say.
I, unlike the bible thumpers here, would prefer if people use there own evolved brain, to come to their own conclusion.
And with that statement, I am sorry if I offend those of you without an evolved brain. - ssb8mao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1vuke69:
we all have this "evolved" brain that you seem to posses, remember, we're all part of this thing called "humanity" - Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Rndm tngnt - "Original Sin" is a no-brainer. Do you think that before St. Augustine could get his slimy meat-hooks into us unsuspecting fools that the concept didn't exist? How do you explain the writings of Solomon in which that very concept was states some 1500 years before St. Augustine was even around?"
The concept that man is unrighteous in the face of God is not new. The concept that man is sinful even before he is aware of himself or any idea of what sin could be was codified and canonized by Augustine of Hippo.
And Wikipedia seems to be about as reliable as any other source. But here you go:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm
http://personal.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/docs/1992as.htm
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
To name a few. - jakkyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1vuke - what do you think a 'victory' is for a Christian?
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A victory for christianity would be to turn the US into a Theocracy. And they'll have to kill me first before that happens.
- J_Omega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Esstee who said "Evolution imo. is a great lifeline catering to those who cannot/ will not live by the notion that they should show gratitude to a creator for life. We could call it a self indulgence package with guilt a free option. Since evolution seems to put on a new face on every book, speech and publishing does it no favors. Especially when it has to compete with information that dates since the dawn of human data recording."
Do you realize that the major faith denominations (Roman Catholocisn and Sunni Islam) as well as Judaism and others HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTION? Your opinion seems pretty silly in that light, considering these are groups of people who DO "show gratitude to a creator for life."
Evolution puts a new face on when it needs to? Certainly, you have to agree that there are very many more different ideas on the "correct" religion than there are diffferences in evolution. Heck, the minor differences in evolutionary teaching is comparable to the differing sects of Christianity - same basic premises, minor changes.
"speech and publishing does it no favors."
??? -- oh, it certainly DOES. I'd argue that the writings on religion are more detrimental to other religious thoughts that don't sync with each other. Religious wars (common throughout history!) ceratinly haven't done religion any favors.
"compete with information that dates since the dawn of [history]"
Well, your religious "information" isn't backed up by anything like scientific info is. Religious info is just kind of handed to you. Scientific info is testable, verifiable, repeatable, etc. And if you really want to use the dawn of us recording stuff down as defense, why don't we (the world) have more trust ancient Egyptian religion, or that of the Greeks and Romans, eh?
"you have yourselves a real mystery ."
Which are fun to solve through rational thought, instead of just blindly assuming some mystical methods must be the cause and refuse to question those unverifiable ideas.
"there seems to be more of a leap of faith involved in adopting the theory of evolution than there is creationism."
How so? You've not explained it, and I'll call *****. Evolution is a continually tested/retested idea process based on logic, evidence, etc. Creationism asks one to naively accept a magical hand-waving is the answer to all.
As for your last comments, read up on Moral Relativism. - jakkyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Truchas - now we're getting somewhere! I knew that you clever :)
If we want to stay in the Old book for a minute, In Genesis, God said, "Let US create Man in OUR own image". Us and Our is most definately plurl.
In the Old Testement alone there many references to the coming Messiah.....Christ fufilled every one of those. - pvtstuart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, back to Evolution, you can't even call it a theory because there is no observation. The scientific method involves observation, of which there is none for evolution.
- Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1BEHOLD HIS TENTACLES OF GLORY AND CREATION
- truchas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am sorry jakkyl, did I miss a reasoning for the aforementioned argument against you? I guess not..
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's the point I was making, man. Original Sin is a doctrine of faith. Like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, or Transubstantiation, or Ressurection of the body.
If you're going to profess a faith, at least try and get a grip on where it's coming from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Sin#Original_sin_in_the_New_Testament - Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Awesome Jesus and God are just a word? *erases them*
- jakkyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK.....truchas - let's say you're going to go visit the Mayor of your town. You go into City Hall and you're met with a what???? maybe a front desk? a person sitting there that can direct you to the Mayor's office because that person works there and knows where the Mayor is. Not only that....if you have an appointment to see the Mayor, this person can verify the appointment and introduce you to the Mayer and he/she takes you to the office.
OK??? you see the analogy? "No one comes to the Father except through me". He's the doorway. What we really want is what is on the other side of that door...but we HAVE to go through it first. - Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll just hack God and noclip through the wall.
- jakkyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1rndm tngnt - I'm afraid you're the one who's not getting it. It would be kind of hard for Solomon to be a Christian don't you think? Much like Moses, Noah, Joshua, Jacob, Abraham.....those guys weren't exactly Christians either now.....at least in a why that they could understand it.....
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, I'm going to bed, and before you rejoice, please note that yes, I KNOW I AM GOING TO HELL (atleast in your opinion).
-
Show 51 - 100 of 275 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 