What is Digg?142 Comments
- onionlayer, on 04/14/2008, -4/+42Wasn't this on the front page no more than a week ago?
- aaaleman, on 04/14/2008, -1/+23Let me respectfully tell you that I think you didn't understand what I tried to explain. I truly mean no disrespect to what you believe in. I'm serious. I'm not discussing belief, faith, theology or religion. I'm discussing semantics.
The term Creationism is a specific signifier that describes a specific signified. Just like an apple is a term to describe a specific fruit. I gathered that you believe that a god created the Universe. Your belief is not an issue in this discussion. It is the misappropriation of the term. Look up Creationism the Oxford English Dictionary, or Webster's or Larousse, or any other sort of reference and you'll find the same definition time and time again. The meaning of that specific word is not ascribed by you, but by a system of standardized definitions that are in place so that we can all clearly communicate with one another.
If you believe the Earth was created by a higher power, and that that higher power created the Earth eons ago, then you believe in creation.
Creation-ISM, is not the same thing as believing in creation. The moment that your belief precludes a word-the-word, completely inflexible fundamentalist account of creation as described specifically in the book of Genesis, you are not, by strict definition, a Creationist.
The term Creationism was ascribed to our parlance to *specifically* describe the fundamentalist, inflexible word-for-word account of Genesis. Straw and mud men, 6,000 years, the flood, the whole package.
This is not my personal terminology, nor my chosen use of the term. It is what is in encyclopedias, newspapers, dictionaries, textbooks, etc. Once you change the signified, meaning the strict definition of a word-symbol, then you change the word itself. You, regardless of what you believe, are incorrectly using language and using an inappropriate term to describe your spiritual beliefs.
It does not seem to me, from what I gather from your comment, that you are a fundamentalist. If you are not, then why use a fundamentalist term to define your understanding of the Universe?
I'm only trying to inform you, man. =) I know that a many Christians consider themselves Creationists because they believe that a God created life on Earth and the Universe as a whole. But if those same Christians don't match up to the exact, fundamentalist reading of Genesis, then they are not, by definition, Creationists. They believe in creation, but are not Creationists. Do you see the fundamental difference (no pun intended). They are using the wrong label to describe themselves. Again... this is about labels, not beliefs.
Again, don't take my word for it. And don't simply digg me down and dismiss me because you initially disagree with me. Read about Creationism from any reliable and objective source of information. You'll learn that what I've described is not incorrect.
This might be useful information, as you'll avoid confusing people when you describe your faith in standardized terms. - eTronicGaming, on 04/14/2008, -2/+20This was JUST on digg.
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -0/+16"Normal" frogs currently perform some respiration through their skin, and are able to secrete urine through it as well. This discovery isn't as far out as people may imagine.
- Vullkan, on 04/14/2008, -11/+26the frog is betraying creationists.
- aaaleman, on 04/14/2008, -3/+16No. But before elaborating let me first disclaim that I have nothing against anyone's beliefs. My explanation is solely based on the meaning of the signifier, Creationism. I'm not making a value-judgment. I'm writing this because there is a general misunderstanding of people about what Creationism and Intelligent Design mean, as terms.
Creationism is the belief that the cosmos was *literally* created as stipulated in the book of Genesis. That's it. If you choose to interpret Genesis as a metaphor, and not as a literal account, then you do not believe in "Creationism," per se. You're just a regular, faithful Christian. If you believe that a God created the Universe, you are not inherently a Creationist.
Creationism is strictly a fundamentalist concept. There is no leeway in this. But don't take my word for it. Look it up in your choice of reference.
People tend to confuse things. - mlwarrior, on 04/14/2008, -7/+19Actually, I think it's the creationists that are betraying the frog.
- chudgoo, on 04/14/2008, -9/+19Suck on THAT, god!
(dupe story gets dupe comment) - Braxo, on 04/14/2008, -2/+11Until it turns into a Zebra, I'm not impressed.
/smug - Dimensio, on 04/14/2008, -0/+8Please explain the fundamental difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". State the mechanisms or outcomes that distinguish one from the other.
- Chebsi, on 04/14/2008, -1/+9Woah, it's like Deja Vu! I wonder if the Deja Vu story will come back too.
- Dimensio, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7Please demonstrate that evolution is a lie.
- CTK14A, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8Intriguing, but not as intriguing as the turtle that breathes through its butt.
- pentupentropy, on 04/14/2008, -5/+11I read it. I don't think it's something we hadn't thought of before. There's some good stuff on evolution we should read. Try nurture via nature. Good read.
- usingpond, on 04/14/2008, -5/+11Silly scientists! Evolution is a lie, remember?
- erkokite, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6Who said you could come out from under your rock?
- charbo187, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6adaptation = evolution. ass.
- Ender008, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6What!?
- TheUserFactor, on 04/14/2008, -3/+9Cue the incendiary preemptive anti-anti-Creationist comment rebuttal from a frustrated human being.
- usingpond, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5You're the one who believes in magic, aren't you?
- Dimensio, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5"So wait... it's called "evolution" when the frog LOSES an organ? Isn't that devolution?"
No. Evolution is, at its most basic, a change in alelle frequency over time. Whether this frequency change results in a gain or loss of any specific organ does not matter.
"I'm all for the social sciences related to evolution, but using this as proof for evolution is embarrassing as well as ignorant of the very definition of evolution. "
I do not believe that you adequately understand the "definition of evolution".
"You need to think in the mindset of both creationist and evolutionist in order to have a non-biased grasp on what the hell is going on."
I believe that your are making the mistake of thinking "in the mindset" of a creationist. Such a mindset is not required for understanding evolution, and in fact it is often demonstrably detrimental when attempting to both understand and explain evolution. - Isileth, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5Evolution does not have an end goal. Its not about making more advanced or more complex species.
Its simply the best for that particular environment being more likely to pass on its genes, and therefore whatever helped it survive in that environment. Just because its "lost" something doesnt mean its a bad thing, in this case it was better suited to its environment, therefore likely to live longer, therefore more likely to have offspring which is a "success" in terms of evolution. - SouthernGuy118, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5better yet, he can define "scientifically proven"
- erkokite, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6Oh, and creationism is such a shining example of scientific provability? Guess what. There is no such thing as scientific provability. At least evolution fits fossil and genetic evidence, and provides a specific explanation, qualifying it as a theory, like general relativity or quantum field theory. That's far more than I can say about creationism.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 04/14/2008, -2/+7What? How is this news? Most frogs breath through cutaneous respiration.
- Dimensio, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6I do not believe that your analogy is viable; chairs do not replicate imperfectly, thus you cannot compare them to biological organisms which have been observed replicating imperfectly. Additionally, not only can a chair manufacturer be demonstrated, but the specific mechanisms and processes by which chairs are constructed can also be fully explained.
Do you have an argument that is not fundamentally flawed? - purag66, on 05/13/2009, -2/+7I, for one, love people who believe in the spaghetti monster.
- Dimensio, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Please explain. What is taught "in University"? Also, what did you find amusing that prompted you to use a common typed shorthand expression for laughter?
- Burento, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6Not for nothing.. but my random brain started going towards... they could figure it out and do it to me and then i can swim under the oceans and find some hot mermaids.
I am all about the hot mermaids.. :) - moocow1452, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Don't hold your breath...
wait... - j3ff86, on 04/14/2008, -3/+7These are just god's revisions. Duh.
- ByteGuerilla, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Once you've got the idea patented you'll be a millionaire, and you know what you can do then?
Two mermaids at the same time, dude. - DrPangloss, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6I love religious folk and their silly little beliefs....Because I said so!
- ozydingo, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4What is devolution?
- Dimensio, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Please explain your statement. I do not understand the point that you are attempting to convey.
- punkcat, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4no no no. Satan made the fake bones to fool us.
- Dimensio, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4"OK..and it supports no other ideas?"
It is accurate to say that it is not consistent with any other widely accepted scientific model of reality. For example, suggesting that it was "created" in its current configuration begs the question of the individual or organization who "created" it and the mechanisms employed in its alleged creation. - ensceptico, on 04/14/2008, -3/+6I count at least three logical fallacies: Argument from Incredulity, Argument from Ignorance, and Begging the Question. Did someone else catch another?
- punkcat, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3or the butt that breaths turtles.
- nitsuj, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3"I didn't say anything about laws. My comment only addressed location but, since you brought it up, laws require lawmakers, do they not?"
Location? Where is your evidence that there exists a place outside of our universe which your creator being lives in and is _therefore_ outside of our laws of physics?
Your analogy was weak, my original point still stands: engineers on Earth exist in the same physical domain as the objects they design and create.
The laws we are aware of do not require an intelligent creator. Science has a pretty good understanding of how matter, and physical properties, formed during universe inflation.
"There's that pesky intelligence again."
Processes do not require intelligence. Everything we observe in the world and universe unfolds via natural processes, not via some supernatural puppet master.
Lastly, why did you choose to ignore the infinite regress issue? - brightshadow525, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4No one cares what you say! Yay! (because I said so)
- feliks2, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Yeah, so it was an accident without purpose.Are you really so vain that you need one?
- XxXKUL, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3whats with the reposts? Dugg down...
- Daz3, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3"It's about the power behind life on this planet regardless of how long ago it happened."
Actually it is an unfounded, unjustified hypothesis about abiogenesis. How do you justify your belief in God and creation? - Daz3, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3You have an incredibly low opinion of people that were just as intelligent as us - the Greeks had calculated the circumference of the Earth by circa 250BC... illiterate farmers lol.
- mjwhip, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two mermaids at the same time?
- Lutremi, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Because all religion has made it so. It's either "just a theory" or Darwin is the human form of the antichrist.
- dball48, on 04/14/2008, -3/+5lungless frogs are the new obama
- exomni, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3That's not creationism.
Here's a few definitions of creationism:
The doctrine that each species (or perhaps higher taxon) of organism was created separately in much its present form, by a supernatural creator.
the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"
Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity (typically God), the existence of which is presupposed. Biblical creationism is the belief in literal interpretations of Genesis. -
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is