What is Digg?26 Comments
- PaxImperium, on 02/26/2008, -1/+14That's the equivalent in saying that all the above persons did not believe in DNA therefore DNA does not and can never be real.
- ozydingo, on 02/26/2008, -1/+12Same old tired crap for the most part, although I did enjoy this:
"Galileo, Pasteur, Newton, and more than 26 other founders of branches of science were believers in Creationism" - wreckosaurus, on 02/27/2008, -1/+9Not so much hilarious as pathetic and depressing
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 02/27/2008, -0/+7"Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated that the possibility of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.1 This is the number one with two billion zeros after it. No chance at all."
That's not impossible, just highly improbable. - donjacko, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6every argument in this article regarding probability is fundamentally floored. its like rolling six dice and recording the results.
the chances of anyone particular outcome occurring are 1 over 46656, but there had to be an outcome.
it is the same with the universe- probability does not work backwards
oh, and BTW, a human genome only actually codes for 30000kilobytes, so that of a virus or bacteria is significantly less than is stated in this article. - lydecker, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5There were many pens that existed, and the ballpoint pen was one that was best suited to survive in it's environment. However, over time, the pen's purpose evolved into the typewriter, which served the same purpose, and it was more efficient. Whether designers lead this evolution or it happened by chance (as natural evolution does), evolution still occured. Typewriters and pens didn't all coexist at the invention of technology.
As for the lack of existence of transitional species, I am so confused by that term. What is a transitional species? All species are supposed to be transitioning to further species. Anti-theory and Anti-knowledge are anti-sensical.
Well, there's a lot of stuff in there, so you'll have to be more specific if you want to ask us to specifically see if a certain aspect can be disproven. - ZacT, on 02/27/2008, -0/+6This whole article is a lie.
"amoeba-to-man theory atheist Charles Darwin brought forth in his 1859 book"
Darwin was raised a Christian.
"There are no repeatable experiments that can confirm evolution’s validity!"
Um... Flu vaccination? And that's a simple one.
"Ninety percent of all astronomers alive today, those that look into the farthest extent of the universe believe the hand that made the stars is Devine!"
That's just made up.
I'm going to stop here. Their thick heads won’t even accept truth, what's the point? - GOVStooge, on 02/27/2008, -0/+5"Those who endorse evolution and discount Creationism do not do so for lack of reason – but because of arrogance!"
It is far more arrogant to think that an Omnipotent entity created you in his image and that the he specifically created the universe as your playground. - Isidore, on 02/27/2008, -1/+6"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
St Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis).
National Academy of Sciences on Evolution, Creationism and Religion
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876 - chewbacca77, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3What nonsense would a Christian talk about the stars? The Bible says nothing about their orbits, sizes or distances. If a Christian were to say anything nonsensical about the stars, it didn't come from the Bible.
- PaxImperium, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4You should get dugg down because all of the arguments used in the article is obviously garbage to anyone who knows anything about evolution. It is filled with lies and logical fallacies that has been disproven decades ago...yes, that's how old and dishonest Creationist arguments are.
Would you like to bring up one "valid" argument to discuss? - knuj114, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5Holy ***** dude...just...holy *****
- ozydingo, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Try reading the comments again. It seems you've missed one or two.
- AndreiOttawa, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3It's pointless to argue with mentally challenged people. And, yes, I think that people who still don't believe in evolution are either dumb or delusional or both.
- eir574, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Looking at a life form and declaring that it must be designed is equivalent to performing an experiment without a control. We have no frame of reference for what "undesigned" life should look like, so how can we infer that the life forms we do see around us must be designed? Perhaps a different analogy will be more clear: Consider Mt. Rushmore. We look at the carvings and know intuitively that they're not a natural formation, and hence that they had a designer. But, we know this because we have seen plenty of mountain formations that we known arose through natural processes, and we have seen many sculptures of human faces that we know had designers. I personally think it would be a little arrogant for me to assume that my little mind can comprehend what natural selection could have achieved over billions of years (or even hundreds of millions of years).
- rollem, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I disagree. I find it both amusing and hilarious, as well as pathetic and depressing. How boring would this place be if there weren't entertaining anectdotes like this. It's pathetic and depressing to think that these people are not few and far between, but numerous and with disproportionate power in our representative government.
- Gradies, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2I'm getting so sick of creationists citing the laws of thermodynamics as being anything close to inconsistent with evolutionary theory. If your going to criticize a theory at least understand your own criticism. Evolution is far from a complete theory. Evolutionists argue. Currently there are debates over selfish genes vs. group selection theory vs. the people who think they are congruent. Stick to the existing holes or point out something new, but when you throw out crap about how the laws of physics, namely the second law of thermodynamics, disproves evolution it really makes my skin crawl. It was never even a good attempt at a disproof. Whoever the idiot that popularized that notion was should be ashamed of himself. The notion is so ridiculous its frustrating. It has multiple layers a flawed reasoning, so trying to point out its flaws is actually difficult because its hard to decide where to start. "never argue with an idiot , they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." I could try to explain how there is a difference between perceived order (an "advanced" life form) and actual order (a crystal). I could point out how the earth is not a closed system, so the discussion is completely mute. Instead I'll just give a very simple example of how things become more ordered all the time: freezing. When you freeze something it goes from a disordered liquid to an ordered solid. So lets just assume for a second that lifeforms are evolving to become more ordered (retard assumption). So what? That is no more impossible than an ice cube being created in you freezer, the entropy just has to go somewhere else. Please help me out people, when you hear a creationist cite the laws of thermodynamics beat them with a bag of ice cubes. Calm explanations just aren't cutting it. We need some serious negative conditioning.
- Mentosan, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2just random quote
Pierre-Paul Broca - “I would rather be a transformed ape than a degenerate son of Adam.” - ozydingo, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Yes, although the infinite nature of the universe is not known nor assumed. If we take the currently believed age of the universe, you can compute a probability of a defined event having occurred within that time frame.
Keep in mind, however, that it seems the probability argument is based on the probability of the right chemicals randomly coming about from scratch to form a human being. That, as far as we know, hasn't ever happened, and we wouldn't reasonably expect it to within our given time frame. But that's not what evolution would have us believe. Evolution is an iterative procedure, not an all-at-once thing--a major detail that many who decry evolution seem not to acknowledge (i.e. tornado assembling a 747 or dictionary resulting from a print shop explosion as referred to by the article--all-at-once construction as opposed to iterative adaptation to changing environments). - bzaks, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Highly improbably indeed, but given a (most likely) infinite universe, doesn't that mean that chances for it to happen approach 100% as time continues?
- XNihil0Zer0, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Plundstedt, I'm guessing jesus seems like a valid argument to you as well. Shows how much you know about valid arguments.
- inactive, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1LOL
So the mentally challenged can take out full page ads? Good to know. - doctechnical, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1My favorite line: "Ninety percent of all astronomers alive today, those that look into the farthest extent of the universe, believe the hand that made the stars is Devine!"
Andy Devine? Cookie made all the stars?
Proof once again the clicking "Spell Check" just doesn't cut the mustard. - plundstedt, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1I'm going to get dugg into oblivion for this...but this seems like a valid argument. And I don't see anyone here making valid points against it besides "HAHA it's all wrong and stupid"
Think for yourselves and I want to see how you would disprove this. - brightsside, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0At first I was searching for which fallacies this article suffers from...um I think it is ALL FALLACIES...I repeat ALL
- bunki8, on 02/27/2008, -2/+1My pens are breeding??? Better keep my reds and blues apart - if they make purple will just make me look gay....
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