What is Digg?103 Comments
- m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27"Thats why Evolution is so unreliable."
Unreliable? No. Return different information about observable facts depending on what information the researcher takes into account? Yes.
"Every year they change their theory."
I would hope that "they" change "their" theory (as if there is some shadowy group of scientists controlling the theory of evolution) as often as is necessary.
"I've heard of 5 big bang theories, and 3 mass extinction theories."
There are probably dozens, if not thousands more, if not HUNDREDS of thousands of varying theories on these subjects.
"I wonder if school text books get updated every year, because you cant keep on teaching old school theories which have been disapproven 100's of times."
Yes, usually a new edition is printed each year.
"...and that is why evolution shouldnt be teached at schools at all. "
Correct. We should all just give up and trust in Jesus.
"Those kids that learned evolution 30 years ago, today realize it was all a balony, since today's evolution theory is different."
We've also realized that the earth isn't flat, women's menstrual cycles aren't evil (well...), and black people don't have extra tendons in their legs.
My conclusion?
stfu. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23"...and that is why evolution shouldnt be teached at schools at all."
You're illiterate, why are you in a position to have an opinion on this? - m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Yea, remember when Darwin created his theory of evolution in 32 AD. in Athens? Yea, those were good times.
- duster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"When you speak logically than you dont need back ups from a dead scientist whose theories have been long barried."
Look, you're referencing a book that's 3000 years old. Let's not talk about what the original source is, because you lose. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13That's a stupid comment for three reasons.
1. The article is talking about mass extinction, which while it plays a part in evolution, it certainly isn't the same thing.
2. Big bang has nothing to do with evolution.
3. So, just because we haven't perfectly figured out a theory means that instead of teaching it we should either teach a known incorrect theory or ignore the subject altogether? I don't think so.
By the way, the theory of evolution is not radically changing at all. In many ways it's the same theory that Charles Darwin wrote about. We've discovered specific mechanisms as well as found species' lineages (including our own) that add to the theory. New information is discovered all the time, but the entire theory has never been rewritten.
That is different than a theory such as Big Bang. Evolution is a biological theory and a lot of information is known about life on Earth. Big Bang is a physics theory and our understanding of physics is less solid. We have a lot of theories and formulas that work very well, but we have also discovered that the universe is a massively complex system and our theories are sometimes not 100% accurate all of the time, or in certain situations. Still, we don't say gravity doesn't exist just because we don't have a fully-developed theory for it. It's simply one of the mysteries of the universe that we don't yet fully understand, just like how we don't throw out Evolution because we haven't fully explained why species diverge. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Are you going to troll this whole discussion even though the article is about mass extinction, not evolution? You actually sound like Stephen Colbert, taking the side of stupidity and arguing it into absurdity. Except you're not as funny.
However, I will agree with you and since we are no longer teaching incorrect theories, I think we should stop teaching our kids about gravity. Newton thought he had it right, but Einstein's general theory of relativity changed that. Now we can't reconcile Einstein's theory on a quantum scale because it completely falls apart. Gravity is too wishy washy. Intelligent Falling is a much better theory because it doesn't change. - praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -3/+12I say aliens planted us on earth and I'm never going to change my mind, therefore it should be taught in schools.
- duster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@bgbs
Can you can show us some peer reviewed journal articles that support Creationism as a legitimate theory? Anyone can write a book, it doesn't mean crap if it isn't generally accepted in the science community. - Whackly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12bgbs..... "teached?" you're a retard
Rather than believe in a constantly refined theory in continual developement and based on impirical scientific data you would choose to beleive in a translation of a translation of a translation of a text written by someone who thought the world was flat. luddite. - duster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"All of you preaching to me that I should prove you this and that..."
Who's preaching to who? You came in to a thread about mass extinctions and turned it into one about evolution vs. creationism. - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If your going to talk crap, at least talk crap while using the reply button. Oh, and use the spelling button while you're there.
Oh, and don't forget to use the close button on your browser. - m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think you put one to many crayons up your nose.
- brumdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This article is *****! They didn't mention that the Flying Spaghetti Monster smote previous species with his noodley appendage due to lack of faith.
Be warned brothers and sisters! His noodley appendage will judge you when the end times come! - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Do you know how many books have been written about Creation Science?"
My favorite Creation Science books are the ones where they went thru with a Find/Replace and changed "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design". Totally extended their shelf life. - whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8excellent post brumbo - already typed this.
@ bgbs
Dear god - stop posting. We get it, you don't believe in science because you fail to understand the difference between facts, theories, models and beliefs.
I know I won't convince bgbs of anything, but I hope any young intelligent people reading this will watch the videos, read the links, and learn how science really works, instead of thinking it's how bgbs says it does.
Quick overview...
1. Observe the world - collect facts
2. Come up with model of how you think it works
3. based on model, determine how you can test the facts to verify the model
4. TEST theory to see if you're right
5. Based on results of test, correct facts and refine theory or model as needed.
Check out this video refuting and explaining
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8937189243168103522
Or "the athiests worst nightmare"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4472004596147265716
Further Reading...
http://www.answers.com/Scientific_method
http://www.answers.com/theory
http://www.answers.com/intelligent_design
Please keep in mind Evolution is a Theory. It represents our best understanding of how things work right now. Incremental changes over time with any change that best aids in the reproduction of a creature.
The ultimate answer ID resorts to is "evolution is how it works, but god made it work like that".
And don't forget the ulterior motive in all these posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy
Of course it's lucky for us ID thinks the new testament is the correct god book. There's also Hindu, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Shamanism, Rastafarian and Scientology stories of how the world was created. They are all useless in helping us explain things in the real world.
Science has no evidence that supports a super being that can bend or break all the rules as she sees fit.
But for those that read the article - it was very good. It explained how they have a new theory that may fit the facts. If the theory is correct, it would suggest other supporting evidence. If it's falce we can find evidence to disprove it. That is a real theory.
It's really complicated so god musta done it is not a theory. - duster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@bgbs
"They were taught an unsolvable fairytale."
Dude, you believe that your imaginary friend in the sky is what created the universe. Talk about an "unsolvable fairytale."
Who's to say that it's one side or the other anyway? The idea of a higher power having control over us and the Theory of Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. Even the Catholic Church realizes this. This does not need to be an us vs. them argument. - brumdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7For reference, the scientific method, from wiki
1. Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
2. Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
3. Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
4. Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
5. Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
Natural Selection (which is the mechanism of evolution) has passed all 4 steps and is well in step 5. Creation fails on all 5 steps. Creation "scientists" just skip to step 5.
Go through the list and let us know what you find. - brumdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I respect your faith and since there may be 3, or possibly 4 more people that feel the way you do, Scientology should be taught in schools. Taught next to Evolution, Creationism, FSM, Joe's faith, and the Church of What's Happening Now theory of bubble gum creation.
- kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"There are far more Scientists who support Creation Science than there are those who Support Evolution."
are you pulling these figures out of your ass? there are far more people in the scientific community claiming to be athiests and agnostics than there are in the general public - Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'd provide an excellent, concise account of what caused said mass extinctions. However, I wasn't around at the time.
- m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Creation "theory" changes based on whatever crockpot organization is currently promoting it for its own personal political/economic goals. ie. Answersingenesis.com
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Holy crap! Again? Seriously? The 'theory' of Creation or "Intelligent Design" which is used to make it sound more 'scientific' is not a theory nor is it scientific. Creation doesn't need fine-tuning because it's not based on anything that can be observed and proven, not because it is correct. You want to talk about a "truth" that has a million definitions? Creating is the crowning example! Every religion has its own explanation for "how it all began". WTF is wrong with you people?
I didn't think you could one-up the ignorance of your first comment, but then you played the ID card. Wow. - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Any references to back that ridiculous claim up?
(Preferably ones that didn't come from The Onion) - bdrydyk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This guy is a troll, I'm sure of it.
- whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@bgbs
Wow dude. That was sarcasm. I'll label it better next time.
You're education won't last forever in a changing world. Learning to drive a horse won't help you drive a car, and sure as hell won't help you type on that there computer.
In the exact same way I know that a good deal of what I learned 20 years ago is now found out to be wrong. I don't demand the damn world change, I update my facts and move on, or realize I'll never know everything and live with it.
If doctors still thought like you we'd all be covered in leaches. Evolution has had flaws found in it from time to time - but it's been CORRECTED, not REJECTED. Big difference. - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Ok give me some facts to prove me wrong. Go ahead I'll be waiting"
I Declare electrons taste like chocolate icecream!, dont believe me, well too bad, it is fact untill disproved
go on, disprove it, until then its truth (because thats how science works, someone states something as fact and if noone can disprove (even if they also cant prove it) then its fact) - Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm not from the USA so I read about creationism here on digg for the first time.
Initially, I thought it's joke like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it seems that some of you religious nuts are really that stupid.
Scientific research backed up by thousands of educated and intelligent people and real life proofs that everybody can see on themselves (e.g., antibiotics that stop working after some time) are unreliable, while a book consisting of texts from unknown sources written for propaganda purposes guides your life ultimately and undoubtedly? pathetic - CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You... you really do believe this crap you're saying, don't you? Well, I'll tell you exactly why it isn't scientific: ID is not based on observable evidence, which is an absolute requirement for something to be scientifically proven.
Science is important because nothing, and I really mean NOTHING, can be presented as a fact if it can't hold up to scientific reasoning. As in, if it's not readily observable and provable, it's just something someone made up. - lightyear, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"By the way, the theory of evolution is not radically changing at all. In many ways it's the same theory that Charles Darwin wrote about."
@Shakin:
Actually, it's the complete opposite. Instead of species fighting out to see who will reproduce, it's genes that are fighting to see which will prevail. I just bought Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (still shipping in Amazon), and it's about that. Can't wait to get it. - kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"For seventy years Communists in Russian hammered Monkey Evolution into people's heads"
they only taught monkey evolution? do you mean the evolutionary history of only the different species of monkeys, or some theory of evolution put forth by monkey scientists, in cute little monkey lab coats, in cute little monkey labs?
"Not only is your reasoning for not teaching evolution in schools deeply flawed, the mindset itself is dangerous."
seems a lot safer than the mindset of your special little club being carried into heaven naked by angels, while all the other clubs are sent to eternal damnation - shadowsword232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Esstee
Science is strict. Francis Bacon came up with something called the scientific method, for something to be scientific it must follow those guidelines. There is no research that can PROVE ID under the scientific method. It all relies on Faith. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Who cares what they teach in school. Kids don't pay attention anyway, and the ones that do will know about evolution on their own. I bet more kids in High School would identify "Lucy" as a cigarette and not a fossil of an early human.
- mhaluza, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6regardless, he's right! So many religions have so many different views on Creation how can you possibly consider it a stable theory? None of it is even based on anything observable so how do you even attempt to prove or disprove it?
- Megzilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This reminds me of a really good read of the earth and it's evolution to what we have today. If you're into general sci and whatnot, check out A Brief History of the World. It talks about some similar theories as this story. And for those who don't find this at least relatively interesting, modern science and its' charm will win you over some day.
- whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@bgbs
> See I can give you bunch of links too that refute your points, but I wont do that because
> its a waste of time at the moment. The only thing you should know, is there are greate
> refutable points being made today by Creation Scientists. Those google links dont me
> anything because there are disapprovals to those claims available by someone else
> today.
PLEASE give me some links. Refute any point you choose if you're able. I would consider it a better use of your time then becoming troll of the day on digg.
> Your false argument is that Evolution drives scientists to observe facts and theories.
That's only false because it's not my argument. My argument is that scientists observe facts, create models, theories and tests and refine them as needed based on new evidence or the results of those tests. The scientific method is how they go about their work. What drives scientists to do things is a personal issue. Evolution is just one thing a scientist may choose to study for whatever reason they choose.
> You are wrong, because there are many scientists that observe things just because it
> fascinates them of how brilliantly God created the world. Gods creation, drives them to
> understand and learn those things. Evolution only cared about proving one thing. God
> doesnt exist. Creationists care only about one thing, Evolution doesnt exist. And both
> parties are driven to prove each other wrong. Scientists have different motives, so dont
> think you know what your talking about.
Scientists do get a euphoric feeling at how well things fit together. Their deep understanding of the world lets them see how beautiful it is. Stoners get the same thing when they take a hit - what of it.
The REASON the world exists can never be explained by science. That's for philosophy client, like creationsim. The REASON scientists choose to be motivated to investigate various topics doesn't make any difference to the results as long as they do their work properly.
Evolution did *NOT* and does not care about proving god doesn't exist. Nor does chemistry, molecular biology, physics or computer science. God is simply not necessary in science. The world is created and we deal with it. It CANNOT be proven that god does not exist. It's impossible to disprove so it is ignored.
I do know what I am talking about and I seek our creationist every day to try and understand why they are attacking this one little corner of science while ignoring the rest. Using child like logic or the blindness of faith to explain their position then demanding everyone agree with them.
Creationists are the ones trying to change science. Science does not care about religion at all. So scientists respond. You're not under attack, you're being asked to defend your statements because that's how science works.
If you don't have time, or are unable then please be silent.
-- and if you're just trolling --
GREAT JOB! - KevinJ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+72 words: Taco Bell
- whoZatGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5*sigh* All my disappeared. Again, but not as funny. :(
----------------------------
Brumdo you're an idiot. May the [diety_of_choice] have mercy upon your [representation_of_your_mind] while you [nasty_punishment] in [place_of_punishment] for [duration_of_punishment]!!!!!!
Look the [religious_text] clearly states that the world was created by [diety_of_choice] in [amount_of_time]. It has been the same answer for [large_integer] years! Science can't even come up with a single answer that lasts more then a few years without changing it all around again.
How can you teach me something then change it later on when you discover it's wrong? What good is my education if it doesn't last forever? What the hell is a hectare and liter?
Besides you're all wrong because [random_source] said [ancient_obviously_wrong_theory] was actually came up with by SCIENTISTS.
Stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself. - democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hmmm...theory with lots of evidence, seen throughout various cultures and their histories, stands up to all criticism, and accounts for the observed data?
Sounds like a flood to me. - robystar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I suppose we should give up on figuring out that ol' gravity situation? So many theories and no concrete answers yet. What is it called when a species stops trying to change, learn from and adapt to its environment? Yes, you sir, and your kind will eventually be that branch that stops short on that funny looking Darwin tree...so don't worry about all this scientific theory mumbo jumbo the rest of us are debating.
- nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Interestingly enough evolution has taken on many forms over the ages. So it is increasingly difficult to determine what evolution actually means on an individual basis, let alone identify it as a standard in a group."
Please provide evidence for this claim. The theory of evolution has become more detailed and enrichened. It's fundamental tenets have remained the same - for example, natural selection.
"In fact... when you take both evolution and creation and put the two side by side in an evaluation, you would be quite disapointed to see how poorly evolution does against the creation mumbo-jumbo."
That is your personal opinion. ID/Creationism is not falsifiable. It does not actually make any predictions - it resorts to taking cheap shots at evolution while having no scientific substance in and of itself.
"It is quite odd also that one would refer to creation as mumbo-jumbo when that very information proved far more accurate than any science long before evolution came around."
The 'information' that the bible provides is not and never has been accurate.
"... however, the creation account has remained true since it was laid in scrolls well over 2000 years ago."
It clearly isn't true at all. The universe wasn't created in 6 days. The Earth is not a flat disc. The Earth does not rest on pillars. Your scrolls are packed full of falsehoods and in this day and age you should really know better than to blindly believe what's written from that age of antiquity.
"Furthermore, I am interesting in knowing how creationism has been discredited?
I don't say that in a challenging way, this is purely out of curiosity."
It has been discredited for the reasons I mention above. It is not falsifiable. It makes no predictions. It defers to a magical entity for which there is no evidence either. It does not qualify as a scientific theory. It is a weak hypothesis at best that has been well and truly discounted in the field of biology. It explains nothing. - drmistermaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3damn bgbs you are one ugly persistent troll...I think my theory of the universe and people being created by Frylock is better than yours. We can see him and hear him talk, unlike some god.
The reason for creationism is because when people were sorta dumb and didn't know why stuff happens, they just kinda made it up. ex. When a tribe observes a volcano explode, the local shaman will tell them the gods are angry. Long time ago, people didn't know the origin of man so they sorta guessed some magical being made them. - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Wow, a creationist with a patronizing attitude! Whoda thunk?
- m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Good example of how fossil records can show trends in evolution/extinction.
- duster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Ok give me some facts to prove me wrong. Go ahead I'll be waiting."
I love this one. Makes me laugh every time. - m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I doubt that any of those men actually observed Creation itself, biblical or scientific. At most, they observed the results of that creation. That means they've only observed things that are Created. You don't have a theory of Createdness do you?
- nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Since their is much debate between Evolution and Creation"
You are gravely mistaken. ID/Creationism is not a scientific theory and is not debated in scientific fields. At best it is a hypothesis that has been discredited and shown as inferior to evolution.
Evolution has overwhelming evidence to support it.
ID/Creationism really is mumbo-jumbo with absolutely no scientific basis. - Kethinov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm a pre service science teacher and I've been studying extinction events in detail, as it's one of the things I intend to cover in my classroom. And I find this article a bit sketchy. It is a bit lax on the details, and fails to account for the fact that hard evidence is attributed to very definite causes for each major extinction event.
The easiest one to solve is the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event in which a very recognizable crater exists on the Yucatan Peninsula, from which a very clear layer of Iridium (byproduct of asteroid impacts) was dispersed into the appropriately aged geologic record.
The Permian-Triassic extinction event is a bit tougher because of the sheer volume of destruction (the most destructive extinction event in history), but my own research and speaking with my Biology, Geology, Earth Science, and Meteorology professors seems to point to Permian-Triassic event being caused primarily by plate tectonics.
Keep in mind, the Permian era coincided with the formation of Pangaea. That created an extremely harsh climate for both marine and land animals due to a severe reduction of shallow water coastline and the creation of vast desert in the center of the super continent. In addition, there have been at least two significantly large impact craters I'm aware of attributed to the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction event. Due to the era being so geologically unstable as a result of the super continent and the impacts, volcanism probably became a problem too. This would also conveniently explain away the following Triassic-Jurassic extinction event.
Extinctions prior to Permian-Triassic can all be be nearly universally attributed to climate change. I don't see any hard evidence that impacts or volcanism played a major role in any of the first big three.
I don't buy this "Press/Pulse" stuff. Each of the "big five" (or six/seven depending on how you classify things) extinction events all have very unique and concrete causes associated with them. They don't strike me as a cycle of serendipitous catastrophes, but instead random freak major events.
At first glance, it looks to me like fun with numbers and statistics without much actual basis for their conclusions. The way they play with numbers in this article reminds me of the vague and bias way that political ad campaigns do. :) Perhaps if the article had more substance, I'd be a bit less critical. - giraldus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7 bgbs:
> I've given you a good argumentive point,
No, you haven't.
> why dont you debate me on this?
Because there is no point in debating a moronic bigot who believes in magic.
> Becareful though, cause I know more than you think
Even if you do know more than I think you do it would still not amount to much.
Thanks for trying though. - unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if you want to bettter understanding of this article, just watch this video
http://www.hi5.com/friend/video/displayViewVideo.do?videoId=209406&ownerId=98960317 - ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6bgbs - You probably know even less than I think you do. STFU^2
Blind God-Based *****? -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 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