What is Digg?156 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Fighting the religious rights anti-American ethic to force Christianity on everyone is productive. But sometimes I break to talk about people respecting each others beliefs. Christians seem to want me to respect theirs, but they think I am dirt because I dont agree/ believe in theirs- regardless of my level of respect. So I think that this is very valuable and productive. Ra-Men bitches.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats right, I pay for a party yacht, others with a different value system pay for a tv show that claims God hates Gays. Its a freedom thing I guess.
- noone1776, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wwfsmd?
- cfazzini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was touched by His Noodly Appendage.
- JoeDonH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dugg. May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2God... I have to post again.. That Guynextdoor... Sheesh.. Heres what you sound like dude, "I am going to write a wordy long post about ***** that isnt true so I sound like I know what I'm talking about blah blah blah blah........
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Evolution is composed of a tenuous set of conclusions stemming from scientists who approached their experimentation with a prejudice towards negating God as a source for the science and an origin of life around them." Ahem* *****. Learn before you talk. Why do you Christians have to blatantly lie about things?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So your reasoning is that something gains validity based on how many people believe it to be true? And that compounds by the amount of time people believe it? SCIENCE does not work that way. And you obviously don’t know what "Theory" means in a scientific context. Again.. the ignorance of Science is your only weapon. so FIGHT! Fight us purveyors of truth and proof. Science threatens your world view, so just stop people from learning about it and we cal all settle in to a nice dictatorship where no one questions anything. Knowledge is told, not taught. Right?
- laughterkillsme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg because the flying spaghetti monster is the best arguement against "intelligent esign" being taught in schools .. and the funniest.
- Doug_E_Style, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2AMEN.. oops I mean ARGHH!!!!
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Oh yeah, let's all please help this guy fund a personal yacht he can take around and party on. While your at it, send some cash my way via paypal at any time."
It is a religion, is it not? He deserves all the same that other fine human beings like Pat Robertson get to have. ;o) - themulf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Guynextdoor, I think you need to be more tolerant to FSM. The Hebrew god, know as God, has its rightful believers. There are some whom believe in FSM, and if you cannot tolerate there being room for both, then I think you shouldn't share that awful opinion. ;)
- Fictitious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Quote from interview: "Although I am the only one who can use the cannons. Probably."
/respect - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Umm... Ok, we get it, you're an athiest... Wouldn't your time be better spent doing something productive?"
Umm... Ok, we get it, you're an [intelligent design nut]... Wouldn't your time be better spent doing something productive? - g00ch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Since the FSM bible isn't out yet, where do we Pastafarians stand on that? Are we supposed to hate the gay folks, or invite them over for pasta and wine?"
i suppose that comes down to whether or not you felt dirty when he touched you with his noodly appendages. - Lewisham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Henderson: I think it's likely. Or, worst-case scenario, in 20 years everyone will get sick of having no electricity, etc., because science based on magic doesn't work so well for things like engineering."
I want to buy this man a beer. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To clarify, a scientist may very well believe in God. Science in no way conflicts with religious faith. It can conflict with religious doctrine, but only if you try and mash the two into the same space, where they really don't belong anyways.
It's impossible to debate ID vs. Science just as it's imossible to debate peanut butter vs. cross country skiing. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Why don't you make fun of the muslems? cause you know they will hunt you down and cut your head off. "
Muslims aren't trying to define our science classroom standards using non-science.
"So I think our stance is that Gays are on-board."
Great! They have good taste in wine, so it would have been a shame not being able to invite them to the dinner table. - grayBot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1JEsus are the quacks coming out of the closet... I have never seen so much crap use of science on a discussion board before....
Dear Mirunit,
When it comes to logic and/or ( inclusive or for you! ) science you like, guynextdoor, are a big drooling retard idiot person, I still like you, we can drink beer together, but STOP TRYING TO BE SCIENTISTS... your crap is dumbing down everyone's children
YOU DONT understand thermodynamics ... go to nasa's website there is alot of ***** "disorder" in the universe, plenty of it, and there are people alot smarter than you measuring it and confirming/arguing over what particulary theories it may or may not comfirm
In your room analogy "we" (earth) is like a one tiny little lintball that resides in between your ears where your brain was supposed to go. So the room may be getting dirtier but if a shirt falls on the floor that little speck of dust could do jumping jacks and it wouldnt matter.
What is the point of quotiung Gould ? he knows evolution is every bit as real as gravity and has written 1,000's of pages in support of it, if you looked hard enough you could probably find the date of the apocalypse in Moby Dick - so why dont you pick that apart?
Newton postulated a "clockwork" universe, BTW he got proven wrong with a few little things called relativity and quantum physics the latter is at work when ever you use anything w/ a transistor.( i.e. your computer )
Again Why in the ***** are you quoting Darwin ? ... hey look this guy doesnt even believe his own theory.....hahahah.... NO wrong he wrote a couple of books because he did believe in his own theory
Look at me I can take quotes out of context too!
" Forgive them father , for they know not what they do"
- Jesus in response to the suppresion of science in his name
O and GuyNextDoor
"If science can one day actually disprove the existence of God, well, than that will be a different day indeed."
You can't prove an MFing Negative! for instance...prove to me you are not a drooling moron...
I swear to the FSM, I will pay for you to take phil 10, its $300 at UNC-Chapel Hill summer school.
BTW no of you have been able to explain why FSM is any less valid than jesus... - gamabunta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hahaha I liked the church of the Fonz from Family Guy this past Sunday.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, top that one, Mel Gibson. Where’s your pirate ship Mel? Huh?? Huuuh? Damn right. Who's your savior now? WHO'S YOUR SAVIOR?!
- kamizu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1PS: As for the debate, it's the *theory* of evolution vs. the *belief* in god.
Two set of beliefs, one more credible than the other. - themulf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ridiculous*
- themulf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Getting people to think is rather productive to me. Some people just cannot look outside the box and see how rediculous the situation is.
- Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ramen! ID ie Creationism(something made up by people thousands of years ago that I wouldn't trust with science) is BS without the FSM(Something that smells so deliciously of the truth and PhD supported!).
- AttroPheed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Flying Spaghetti Monster Loves You! +digg
- wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Yeah, I guess we all squirm at the thought that a theory on the origin of life held for thousands of years somehow still holds weight against a theory that has only been around 150."
Right, things that have been around for a long time always take precedent over new scientific findings. Let's equate that to something else, shall we? So just because for tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of years people believed that the earth was flat and the exact center of the universe, that makes it true? I mean, everyone did believe it, how could it not be true? These crazy new "scientific" theories are purely ungodly in nature, are they not? - lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1tvfuzz: Because they have to convince themselves that they're on the right track and that their life's devotion to a faith was not a waste of time.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The existence of God being paralleled to some goofy theory made up by one man to make fun of a belief held by millions just doesn't get me going."
Most folks that take the time to think for themselves tend NOT to fall for the mob mentality. We Pastafarians are maybe not brilliant thinkers, but we did take the time to look up the difference between the terms 'theory' and 'scientific theory'. Pass the garlic bread, please. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Line #126 of the website clearly states "Remember, we are all His creatures." So I think our stance is that Gays are on-board.
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ mirunit
For your education,
1) You seem to be woefully unclear about what the theory of evolution even is. The theory of evolution basically says one thing; In biological life there is descent with modification.
2) The theory of evolution has been proven. i has be proven to the extent that any scientific idea can be proven. Science can't prove that the sun will rise and set each day, but it can make a REAL good argument for it that is capable of being proven wrong. That is science, and nothing else. - breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!! All evolution says is that the form of life changes over time. It says NOTHING about who, what, where, when, how or why life originally began. Some scientists use the theory of evolution in conjunction with other applied sciences to try and determine those questions, but the theory of evolution itself says NOTHING about the origin of life!
- wheremyarm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, no no no no no no no. joeyjojo, you're wrong. Religion DOES conflict with science. If a scientist believes a supernatural being is behind everything, he's going to be persuaded to show that in all of his findings. It gets in the way of unbias, logical judgements.
- cybrauralninjuh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates"
Outstanding. Strangely, I feel that I've known this all along. Maybe it's due to... I dunno... ninjuhz pwning in the eternal fight between them?!!! Because quite obviously, these ethereal forces are engaged in battle all around us; giving you a bad mood, and my gf a good one, for instance. And consequently, a blowjob. Ninjaz kick it.
Butt seriously. This article was... phenomenal. And I mean that in all the best ways. - grayBot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1o come on GuynextDoor.....i really find it hard to believe you are physicist... what do you study ???
well if you are you must have never taken logic because your argument is completely erroneous.
yes I agree there is always bias in research, but come on
"With evolution, you might likewise try to extrapolate back the observables that prove conclusively life on earth stemmed from something other than God, but it requires the same amount of faith to believe in this origin"
despite your ability to use the word observables, you are basically trying to argue that science requires the same amount of faith/belief that religion ( notably: Islam,Judaism,Christianity )
Unless you can convince me that there is no difference between an objective observation and a belief then this is complete crap. But then you wouldnt be christian you would have to be either nutty or really into metaphysics or a buddhist from the mind-only school, becuause you would ascerting that all reality is created our heads and there is no observable reality...anyway....
Reading the bible requires faith that jesus existed and the story is true.
Most experimentation involves an observation or measurement of something right in front of us. Yes, sometimes our eyes can decieve and instrumentation can be off..... but that is a far far cry from believing in a story because it's in a book.
For instance if Jesus knocked on my door and turned water into wine, and then floated up into the sky and then came back an hour later, I would first call my friends and ask them if they dosed me with acid, if not I would start thinking alot harder about christianity.
That my friend is the precise difference between faith and observation. If science worked on faith, this computer sure as hell wouldnt have ever existed, or at least I could pray hard enough for windows to stop crashing...
If you can believe in a god that floods cities for having sex and can impregnate virgin women at will then I can sure as hell ride around on a tax-exempt pirate ship spreading the new gospel and hopefully use govenrment money to pass out condoms to the poor dying africans who are being told to seek god and suppress the most powerful natural urge that exists.
please sir....give it up.... your stupid ideas are hurting science and all other education for that matter. - lampy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Since the FSM bible isn't out yet, where do we Pastafarians stand on that? Are we supposed to hate the gay folks, or invite them over for pasta and wine?"
Don't worry, once the great FSM bible is given to us by FSM through the prophet, Bobby Henderson, we will know the truth and be able to follow the FSM bible literally. That is, until, the reading the FSM bible literally becomes inapplicable to the new world and we will have religious scholars reinterpret the original meaning of the FSM bible to something more reasonable, but yet enough to call those we don't like as sinful, and our religious leader, also know as the "Noodle", will issue decrees to help lead the faithful in these troubling times. - lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1GuyNextDoor: Oh, yeah I guess we should just stop teaching science altogether, huh? What's with this "observable" thing, anyway? It's all a lie, God is just testing our faith! These heathen inventions like computers and toilets were all just made by Satan! I say we burn down our homes and live in our huts, and give up all our rights to the Catholic Church. Seriously, you religious types just can't stand it if someone doesn't agree with you.
Anyway, nobody is arguing with Muslims because one of the major aspects of Islam is the idea of discovering more about our surroundings. Essentially, Islam promotes science because it reveals the working of God's intricate world, or something like that. Of course, the religion has taken a change, for the worse. Today's self proclaimed Fundamentalist Muslim practices almost nothing from the religion created more than a thousand years ago. - jimmyM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i was touched by his noodly appendage. i digg it.
- frosted, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mirunit, the law of entropy does NOT mean that evolution is invalid. Using your logic, if someone said that god was a 3 headed turd with wings that spreads chocolate on iPod labels 2000 years ago, it must be true. You are making an extraordinary claim. You need extraordinary proof. Is it realistic to believe that your intelligent design "being" actually created everything and poof, left no evidence of it's existence? Lack of proof is not evidence. Prove your claim.
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ah, I see! So it's really just that they are using a language that uses the exact words that we use but they have totally different meanings. So when they say 'evolution has never been proven' they are really saying 'I had a scrumptious breakfast today.' Thanks, now I get it! I thought they were all just being ignoramuses! ;)
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a pointless debate anyways. It's not like high school science classes actually train scientists. As long as colleges don't start offering BSs in Creationary Science or something useless like that...
As an aside, in my high school biology class, the teacher spent half a lesson going over a few wildly different takes on creation myths, and I found it to be somewhat interesting. I don't think it's a problem that teachers be required to include a half hour's worth of material on creation myths, as long as they pick some interesting and varied ones from different cultures. Maybe they could get three columns of lists of religions with different types of creation myths, and they must pick one from each, and spend equal time in each section, maybe with prepared material to cover each creation myth. It's not like this will change the kids' beliefs or anything, but it's nice to expose kids to the idea that macro-evolution as a creationism mechanism is still just a theory, and that places it closer to other creationism myths than many "scientists" would be comfortable admitting.
Don't get me wrong, I have a BS in microbiology, and I think all creation myths are just nice stories that reflect on the values of the religion they came from. I still find it interesting to bring up the debate, if only to show kids that science isn't about answers, it's about discussing possibilities and describing mechanisms, and offering support for the way you think things work. No other classes are going to touch upon this subject and bring up this valuable debate (it's not like philosophy is taught in American schools), so I have no problems with biology class taking the heat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@mirunit (see I'm learning)
Yeah, Science can be wrong. Thats what my post was about. And how that somehow means to christians that everything is science is wrong, because to them, in their world, if any part of their belief is wrong, it destroys all credibility. I dont see any Jesus-made cures for disease, or any prayer feeding the hungry. And I never will. Its a testament to science that those things do happen. So theres are credabillity. Aside from finger wagging, and controlling people, wheres yours? - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"please sir....give it up.... your stupid ideas are hurting science and all other education for that matter."
Please prove, in its entirety evolution. Evolution is a theory for a reason - it cannot be backed up, its just pieces of information put together with man trying to figure out what it all means.
Creation cannot be proven right or wrong and it is up to the individual to decide what they believe. Science is imperfect so do not call others stupid because they do not agree with it. Right now you decide what to believe, when you die you will know for shure. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why dont you name all this "*****"
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"And how that somehow means to christians that everything is science is wrong"
Where did you come up with that, hot air rising is science and I do not think anyone in Sunday school would disagree. Science has had its successes and failures but it must always be questioned not just taken for fact the minute it is proposed even when flaws exist. - vermin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Evolution requires faith and belief, and has most of the characteristics of religion present to classify it as such."
WRONG. Let's look at the major characteristics of most all religions:
1-Belief in something sacred (for example, a god)
2-A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
3-Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
4-A moral code believed to have a sacred basis.
5-A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it
6-A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
The only characteristic that evolution shares with religion is #5. That's it. So, no evolution does not have most of the characteristics of religion, and should not be classified as such. Obviously you lack educational knowledge not only about science, but about theology as well.
The other point that you seem to miss is that science says nothing one way or another about the existence of god. According to science It is definately possible that god exists, just as it is possible that an omnipotent flying spaghetti monster exists.
As for your third point, there's lots of things that science can't disprove the existence of. God and the FSM are two, but you could come up with all kinds of ideas of things that can't be disproven. That's great, but what's funny is you trumpet this fact as if it somehow makes ID a more credible proposition.
If ID proponents such as yourself could argue for ID as a scientific theory, based on its own merits and evidence, I'd like to hear it. The catch is, put for the scientific evidence without mentioning evolution. If ID is truly a legitimate scientific theory, then like all other scientific theories, it should be able to stand on its own feet based on its own merits without attempting to put down evolution as a means to prop itself up. Argue FOR ID, don't argue AGAINST evolution. See if you can do that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ guynextdoor
We continue to prove the bible to be false because there's allot of ***** in there. Its like what? 26 books? give us time. We dont "NEED" to prove it to be so. It just simply is, my dear. - vermin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol ignored again. Funny how every time I pose the same question to ID people, nobody ever answers me. They are just content to put down this scientific theory, or that scientific theory. Yet they can never argue the case for their own theory on its own scientific merits. They can only point out the flaws in other theories as a means to increase the credibility of their own "theory".
I ask again, GuyNextDoor, let's say ID is a bonafide scientific theory, why is it a more credible theory than evolution? And do this without mentioning evolution, let the evidence for ID speak on its own as every scientific theory does.
It's funny how this question always gets left unanswered by every ID proponent, (or they direct me to a website, which when read doesn't answer the question). - GuyNextDoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0All I have to say, is I was able to carry on a decent discussion forum with most of you without reverting to name-calling and personal bashing, and I am totally unsure why this could not be reciprocated by those who read my comments. Please, when I refer to evolution as a system requiring as much faith as belief in a God creating the universe, it DOES NOT MEAN I THINK ALL SCIENCE is RELIGION. I seperate macro (inter-special) evolution from real science, because there is not even close to enough evidence to support this theory (no, several bones scattered about the fossil strata is not going to cut it). Several of you believe that proponents for creationism (the name by which ID used to be called) are just whackos who would refute all true science as wizardry and magic and of the devil - and this is just ludicrous. Name-calling, labeling, and a lack of respect are no basis for a proper debate on the subject at hand.
@ Graybot - "Unless you can convince me that there is no difference between an objective observation and a belief then this is complete crap." - I never said what you are saying here. I said, certain events, such as the big-bang, or comet dust depositing elements that contributed to protein synthesis, cannot be proven using the scientific method. One cannot observe them, therefore, the postulation that they exist is asking for a belief in the unseen. And seeing the effects of such events may help to identify the event which triggered it, but this becomes too circular to be an effective validation of a theory, especially one so far removed (in time) from the source.
Oh, and Jesus's actual existence as a man on the earth has been a well-documented fact - proponents of all camps do not argue this. Now, whether Jesus was a deity or not is up for matters of faith.
And I can assure you I am a real bonified physicist! Does this confound you that real scientists actually believe this nonsense? I run into plenty of fellow proponents for creation all the time in my field.
@tvfuzz - there are quite a few more books in the bible than that, if you want to discredit the Bible, then at least you could get your facts straight. Sounds like you just dismissed it without actually looking at to begin with. I've studied evolutionary research papers (def not all of them!), and read some of Darwin's work, and after looking at what they've had to say, would not recommend the findings sufficient to propose the kind of allegiance so many have so quickly pledged to the theories.
@pxtl - You point out some weaknesses to the young earth model, and these are most definitely great questions to ask. At the same time you see so much proof for a very old earth, there are many places where things are all mixed up, with geological layering occuring in non-logical orders, some places have the fossil "record" in the wrong order, or in mixed up layering. You have scientists believing the universe is expanding away from a central source (big-bang) but then recent findings say that the universe is really "pulsating". There are just so many weak scientific arguments on both sides, that's it's painfully obvious neither can stand the rigorous test of science at the current point in time. - Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BEHOLD HIS NOODLY APENDAGES
-
Show 51 - 100 of 151 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