What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
293 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+33Huuuuuuge defeat for flat earthers!
Huge - alexology, on 10/10/2007, -22/+38Not that I want to turn this into a science vs. religion thread, but what really amazes me is how religious fundamentalists choose to live under a rock and not only ignore these types of discoveries, but denounce science in general, meanwhile going to doctors to get the latest prescription of Viagra.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15It will inevitably turn into a science vs religion thread anyways, as a bunch of religious fundamentalists will come in here, completely misunderstand the article and its implications, and start spouting off how this means that they're "right". They will say this as they are working under different rules than science does - in their religious system, if one thing is wrong, the whole thing is wrong (infallible deities and all that). Science doesn't adhere to those rules, however - if something is wrong, you re-examine the evidence and come up with a new explanation that takes the new evidence into account.
- minoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I take it you're not too familiar with the scientific method.
- physphd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14"Evolution is bad science because it keeps having to change the rules that make it true. True science doesn't need to change the rules to make things work."
I'm not sure where you got this idea. That is, in fact, the essence of science. As a physicist, I can't think of a single area of the most fundamental of sciences that even claims to be true, in the grandiose sense of a Platonic truth. We make models and revise them to be more accurate. That's it. The history of physics is littered with accounts of finding "Truth" and "Law" only to be later revised. It is a process of hypothesizing, testing, and revision. Nothing more, nothing less. Science is a process and not a set of inviolate laws. Yet somehow engineers are still able to apply our ever-changing descriptions of basic natural phenomena to the creation of technology that is itself constantly evolving. Funny how that works. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13No evolution works just fine independent of what we believe. More like we are adjusting our view of our anthropological past. There is a HUGE difference.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I had a creationist biology teacher who was so serious in her beliefs, she wouldn't get a flu shot. She got it once, and viruses don't evolve (according to her), so she shouldn't need another.
Unfortunately for her, the flu shot wears off in about 10-13 months, so you still need to get it every year for it to work. - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11i think his point is it's idiotic to dispute well established theories like gravity, evolution, and thermodynamics. disputing new and emerging theories makes sense, like string theory or M theory. it's like going back and debating whether or not the earth goes around the sun. besides, the reasons people are arguing against evolution is not scientific, they are religious.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It just means we re-examine the evidence and come up with a new theory - and we *already* know Darwin's model was flawed, which is why we currently use Stephen J Gould's model of Punctuated Equilibrium.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11While I will not rule out an afterlife, neither will I rely upon it until shown proof of one's existence. Without evidence of an afterlife, there's really no point even considering one from a rational standpoint.
- alexology, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11wtf?
- vonfook, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Remember when Christians believed that the earth was flat? That the universe was centered around the Earth? That the earth was 6,600 years old? That dinosaurs lived with humans? That evolution wasn't real....? Oh dang, catch up guys.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Point 1)Vaccines are not drugs 2)Vaccines work by activating the immune system so it being used 3)That is not how the immune system works so please go read up a little on the basics of the immune system
- msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Medicine = Science
Evolution = Science
Denouncing one while praising the other makes no sense, they both come to conclusions via the same method. - ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Thus, we see the self-correcting nature of the scientific process. If a piece of evidence comes along that conflicts with current theory, we re-examine the evidence and come up with a new theory that takes this new information into account. Thus we have come up with our current base model, punctuated equilibrium, upon which several branching theories are based, each of which looks promising for further development of our understanding of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You're misunderstanding the scientific process if you think evolution doesn't "work" without it. Evolution is a fact - we can observe it in labs, and you likely fall pray to it every year with a new variation on the flu virus or cold bacteria. The THEORY of evolution is our best explanation of how evolution (the fact) occurs. When the theory proves inadequate in the face of new evidence, we modify it to take it into account after re-examining all the facts.
- brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Never ceases to amaze...evolution being a 'just a belief' is enough to discredit it, but creationism being a belief makes it a-ok
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8This what I really find most amazing about the early devolopment of human beings. How strange must it have been to come across another sentient being that can make tools. The earlier homosapiens seemed to come across these people all the time.
- omega6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The thing creationists don't understand is that we are finding skeletons from millions of years ago. This means that, whether these creatures are our ancestors or not, they would be here before the creation of the world. hmmm How could that be? Maybe one of those skeletons is of god? Or maybe your beliefs are flawed and you should maybe not take the bible so literal. After all, you can't very well believe all of Genesis without also believing in all of the commandments. So please by all means promote creationism, as long as you sacrifice your first born lamb and oxen and all of that other happy stuff in the commandments. Let's not only follow the first 10 now...
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Before brokencrystal comes in here and starts spouting off again, let me just state that the micro/macro model of evolution was thrown out in the '30s as they showed that it did not work. If you're going to disbelieve in evolution, at least disbelieve a current theory. Also, the article has some good points in it about various species evolving from a common ancestor.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Monkeys are a MODERN animal. But hey maybe YOU are realted to monkeys but I'm pretty sure the rest of us are related to ancient primates(Great Apes).
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Many creationists fail to understand what evolution is. Evolution is simply the process by which a beneficial mutation is rewarded with continued existence and the chance to procreate to pass on said mutation while those with less beneficial mutations are either competed out of existence or die out due to environmental stresses. This process continues until the life form reaches an ideal physical form suitable for life in the new environment. If the environment stays static no more evolution takes place. It's a pretty simple concept. Not very hard to understand and it’s observable in life forms with a very short lifespan.
- KingBunny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Creationists aren't being dugg down because they're creationists, but because they're saying stupid things.
That's how Digg works; deal with it. - ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7How about gravitation? Its taken a very long time - starting with Newton, then Einstien (Relativity), and now Hawking.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's because gravity and the wetness of water don't challenge people's faiths like evolution does. And no, even if one side is right, there still might be debate - take Flat Earther's for instance, we know for a fact that the earth is round, and no amount of proof will let them accept it.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's why it was discarded - fossil records show clear evidence that the only difference between the two is the scale and the time involved.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8brokencyrstal is a broken record.
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7How long have you been on digg. I do not know if you know this or not. But if you hit the button that says "show comment" The texts comes down and you can read it. But I will explain it to you in ways you understand if you like. As you click on the button that says show comment Jesus says let there be comments and there are and it was good. Its like majic it just works.
- brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Cue the Christians who think that science adjusting to new evidence on a particular facet of evolution disproves evolution entirely
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Interesting convolution of logic there... but just because I didn't say you should also disbelieve old theory that is unsupported by evidence does not automatically mean that you should believe it.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The "Theory of evolution" is not "evolution", its an explanation. Evolution is a fact - it happens. The theory of evolution explains how that fact occurs.
- robbyjo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Please, no religion vs science debate and try to read the article before commenting.
- heaintheavy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Clearly these were planted by those anti-God scientists!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Complete and utter garbage. Creationist attempt to push their religious based agenda into school all the time. If it was kept private, it would not be a problem.
Evolution is science despite all your delusional attempts to ignore the evidence. Why do you oppose evolution? If you tell me it is not based on religious grounds, I'll call you a liar.
FACT: Biological animals reproduce imperfectly
FACT: Selection pressures selects for specific genetic traits
FACT: The fossil record is arranged in such as way as to show changes over time.
FACT: Speciation has been observed.
FACT: Evolution is useful in Biology
What counter arguments do you have? - physphd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I loathe the rudeness on digg, but your response is nearly gibberish.
"The issue you ignore is that the variations and permutations are very similar in other areas of science." I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means.
"In most cases you may have to add a rule because the rule before was proven to be true." Again, this doesn't make any sense. Why would addenda be needed if a model were yielding accurate predictions? And that's all any model can do: predict results. I've never heard any scientific theory claim to be proven true, only to consistently predict accurate experimental results. When a better model or explanation comes along that is consistent with experiment, then we go with it. You are looking for religious certainty and iron-clad assurances from a field that doesn't even claim to offer such things? Why?
"Evolution seeks to take rules already "proven" and either removing them completely, or change the already existing "proven" rules to suite the new evidence." Like what? It seeks to explain empirical data. When new, inconsistent data is discovered then the theory must be revised to included it. Why isn't this a good thing? Why should we ignore physical specimens we can hold in our hands.
"New evidence disproves old rules...so those rules must not have been proven using the true scientific method." I honestly can't follow this. Are you still laboring under the assumption that any science has ever claimed to be True? No. It seeks explanations consistent with data. That is it. To argue otherwise means you do not understand the definition of science. There is no mystic blessing offered by men in white lab coats stating some textbook is truth. That is the arena of religion. Science can only offer theories to the extent that they are consistent with data. That is it. And without fail, these models change to incorporate new discoveries. This is the built in error correction that is so beautiful, that religion lacks to it's detriment. Science expects to be wrong, religion damns you for even doubting.
You are arguing a non-existent argument. - amalagaura, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5One is a gift from God the other is a gift from the Devil. :-) DUH!
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And gave us all dangly nughty bits!
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5So you are telling me we should not teach are kids about bioloigy, physics, gravity etc. Because there is going to be new discoveries in the future that are going to change are current understand of these studies?
- sardiskan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Whittle"? Ok, what was that all about. Are you asserting that creationist are as like immature children. Evolution/Creation is not arguable in the area of intelligence. Because there are very intelligent people on both sides of it. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they are not intelligent.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5So when Einstein developed his theories of relativity why didn't Physicist discard Newtonian physics? The Theory did change the rules that were 'proven'.
Please provide me some examples where evolution had rules that were 'proven'(you do realize that nothing in science can be proven?).
Oh, please provide me an example of the 'true scientific method'. Please provide me an alternative to Evolution based on evidence. - sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Now here's a fact: you will never convince a creationist that they believe in a fairy tale and you will never convince a scientist that the scientific method is flawed. Drop it, you're all wasting your time.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The point is, we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes, but rather apes and monkeys and other hominids all evolved from a common ancestor.
- MikeyBillz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Please insert religious fundamentalist "creative design" ***** below.
- itzac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, the first western people to propose evolution were catholic monks who got to spend time on things like botany. Their ideas were based on observations of the apparent relatedness of the plants, and eventually animals, they worked with, as well as the realization they could, themselves, cause changes in plant and animal species. They simply felt these phenomena were more wonders of God's creation, and raised interesting questions that might require further study.
So you see, the science really follows observations, as it should.
Of course, don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. I regret that when I take time to learn these sorts of things I promptly forget the sources, but I believe all this started in the 15th or 16th century. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4GENETICS, INFECTIOUS DISEASE and EPIDEMIOLOGY. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
Stop using PROVE. There is no 100% proof in science. In science there is probability. - twisterrust, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Here in an example; the Fastest Man on earth is XYZ he can run 100 meters in 15 seconds ( random year news) -
now 10 years later, the fastest man on earth is ABC , he can run 100 meters in 10 seconds( Random+10 years news)
so now based on what you are saying, this cant change? OR we should not record the fastest man as it can change later and therefore NOT a FACT? - sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Maybe I need to read the article again...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So when you can't make a single cogent argument and you have no facts, while we 'evolutionist' do have facts and know what we're talking about, you run away and cry and claim that we 'evil evolutionist' think we're superior.
I'm bloody biologist and medical doctor, several of these guys are physicists and researchers. Who the hell are you? Why should we respect your complete ignorance about something you're attacking? All you arguments have been torn to shreds and you can't find a counter argument. Stop acting like a dishonest crybaby. Go learn about evolution, develop some good arguments or stop debating. - TWINFM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"We should not teach our kids something as FACT when it is not proven as fact." Isn't that exactly what we do when we present religion to our children? Most people don't take their kids to church and say well this is just a popular idea, take it with a grain of salt... Instead they follow it with the utmost devotion, easily turning away far more concrete ideas without a second thought. I don't understand.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 293 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is