digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Philadelphia declares 'Year Of Evolution' Celebration!

museum.upenn.edu — 2009 is going to be a year of evolution, starting April 19th in Philadelphia. The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology is opening a new exhibit on Evolution. Several prominent scientists are going to give talks in the city. Imax Movies, Zoo projects, the Franklin Insititute, and more will be participating.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • JazminMillion, on 04/17/2008, -16/+1This is a great time we live in! We can do right by our mistakes or we can parish should we fail to comprehend and over come our adversity's.

    Welcome to the future...
    • chrgrose, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Do you mind tellng me what the hell you are talking about?
      • takamalak, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I think it has something to do with the Age of Aquarius?
  • Frost9999, on 04/17/2008, -6/+37I really hope this helps people understand more about the reality and beauty of evolution. It's a beautiful part of all life around us, far from random, and is more stimulating than the idea that an imaginary being simply got vain/bored and decided to make all life in a week.
    • JoeVet, on 04/17/2008, -10/+1Far from random?
      • Rettocs, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5Evolution is not random, it is very precise and calculated. You must be mixing up evolution with the Big Bang Theory.
      • groumpf, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8Evolution is not calculated. Precise it is, but not calculated. If nature knew or calculated in which direction to go when evolving, we would probably not be here... But i agree, it is not random. Mutations are, not evolution.
        • WATYF, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1But isn't "evolution" simply a combination of mutations and natural selection? If so, the mutations would be random and the natural selection would be more aptly described as "unavoidable"... not "precise". It's not a precision that makes it happen, but simply the blunt force of the environment killing off the organisms with the unfavorable traits.
        • Harabeck, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3But only those with certain traits while the ones with the favorable ones survive. So yes, precise.
          • WATYF, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1I just think that's anthropomorphizing evolution. There is no "precision", per se. That implies intent and method. It just does whatever happens. If the environment changes, those that can adapt, do... those that can't, die. It's not like there is some kind of "force" called evolution... it's just a combination of factors, and those factors can go any number ways, change at any time, and work for or against any organism depending on how the environment changes. It doesn't have a goal, and therefore can't be "precise" in how it accomplishes it... it's more a matter of "que sera sera".
          • MoofTheStoof, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Natural SELECTION is how we end up with complexly balanced ecosystems where species interact on many levels as well as fulfilling various niches in the system. Some species are so specialized as to fill only a single niche. Traits are SELECTED for (and by) viability. It's the opposite of random. There need be no anthropomorphizing.
    • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -7/+0imaginary being got vain/bored = using personal incredulity to attack a straw man

      • Frost9999, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Actually that's what is says in the bible - god made man in his image. That's vain.
        • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2It is only vain if the being in discussion is not worthy of all praise, consisting of the highest good, etc.
          • eviltandem, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4So to your mind labeling oneself as "worthy of all praise" is not vain?

            I may have to go look the word up again...
          • WATYF, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2...not if it's a statement of fact. I'm just saying... if there is a creator God, then he can say/do whatever he wants (and it would be "right")... our opinion of his actions is pretty much irrelevant.
          • Frost9999, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Well in this case, god says he'll hurt you forever if you don't praise him. It may be the case that the word vain was invented specifically to describe god's actions on a day to day basis.
          • Smills, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1I hate to break it to you, but if I was unbelievably good looking and said to a crowd 'I am unbelievably good looking', then that would be classed as vain.
    • TheUngod, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Ben Stein is not invited
    • Rtothe2, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1And here I am in Florida where this kind of thing would seem like a complete impossibility at this point. They are in the middle of passing legislation to allow teachers to challenge evolution with alternative theories, none of which the supporting politicians have named and which is safely assumed to be ID. Despite the best efforts of legitimate scientific voices in the state, it seems the yahoos will succeed in injecting a little 17th century into 2008. Flori-duh indeed.
      Info here: http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=496
  • Kaitsu, on 04/17/2008, -7/+18Fine, but you have to promise me that the year after that is dedicated for The Noodly One.
  • Rettocs, on 04/17/2008, -9/+7Now how long do we have to wait until Catholic soccer moms attack this celebration?
    • takamalak, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7It's not the Catholics that are against evolution.... Worry about the Evangelical soccer moms.
      • MrRad, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Why not worry about both?

        -But especially the Southern Baptist megachurch crowd.
        • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Sadly, the Catholic Church actually embraces the theory of evolution. I say sadly, because it really speaks to the stupidity of religious people that many Catholics aren't actually aware of their own church's views on the subject
        • Cerialthriller, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2ive never met a catholic creationist and i know a lot of catholics
  • PropCulture, on 04/17/2008, -6/+23Oh man, this is going to bring out the crazies.
  • Nighend, on 04/17/2008, -25/+2Buried for innacurate. Evolution is a lie. Global warming too.

    Oh and women's rights as well
    • ORBAT, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You forgot peak oil.
    • Logicexe, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Don't forget the moon landing and 9/11
    • EarlOfLade, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2POE?
      • ozydingo, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Nah, here's it's pretty easy to tell he was benig sarcastic. There are certainly better examples of Poe's law around Digg.
  • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -28/+4I am now, and forever shall be, agnostic towards "evolution". Either I have a created ability to comprehend truth, or I have an unguided, purposeless and unreliable monkey brain.

    If you want to celebrate your monkey brain for a year, go ahead.
    • chrgrose, on 04/17/2008, -2/+11Your local university library isn't a gateway to fiery death and tears like the church down the streets want you to think.
      • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -11/+0Oh, oh, you got me.
        I am converted...I suddenly realized I can go to the library. This is my whole mistake.

        The preacher man said I would burn if I read books. I take every thing the preacher man says without thinking.

        Now I have to reconsider my ways....
        • chrgrose, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4The problem with religion is it pretends to know what one might be able to find, yet it tells me NOT to find.

          The results of science--endless instances of evidence--continually confirm certain fundamental ideas like evolutionary theory, and yet instances of theory underdevelopment which are the subjects of continuous scientific investigation get the full attention of fools who ignore what has been accomplished.

          Imagine a beautiful castle near a quarry. The quarry contains the building material which goes through a long process of refinement and compositional analysis before being incorporated into this castle. The creationist looks at the quarry and sees only this material and mocks it saying its porous and full of impurities, completely ignoring the availability of the results of human investigation and achievement--this enormous and beautiful castle which they pay no attention to.

          Your sarcasm won't help you understand the structure, composition, and accelerating growth of this castle, this theory of our history.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0I found your statement kind of sarcastic, so I decided to shoot back with the same level of dialog.

            I am truly impressed with the results of science, and I understand its tentativeness.

            However, the philosophy of science describes and imaginary closed system that has foundation metaphysical "truths" that cannot be tested by the scientific method. These metaphysical statements have to be justified as "basically proper beliefs" for science to begin working. Why is this so hard for evoDiggers to understand?
          • chrgrose, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I actually work in the field of philosophy of science, but I don't know what your term "basically proper belief" means. Certainly there is a fundamental metaphysic to science but this metaphysic is tied up within the concepts of empiricism, rationalism, and causal realism (tough to rationally *caugh* argue against). All science is is an empirical methodology where instances of evidence (that is, the positive or negative results of hypothesis testing) count as reasons to believe that the hypothesis tested is true. Most of the other identities are sociocultural and are more related to the way the scientific enterprise or community works in a purely practical sense, but the former idea is perhaps the epistemological backbone of scientific investigation.

            The simple fact is that these mountains of evidential instances are overwhelmingly in favor of the truth of evolutionary theory and overwhelmingly against any fundamentally incompatible alternative.
    • johnnysaucepn, on 04/17/2008, -1/+8Or maybe you have a monkey brain's ability to comprehend truth. Why would that be such a terrible thing?
      • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -7/+0If I had a monkey's brain to comprehend it, how would I know?

        How could I find an indubitable way to fix a probability that it is true?

        • ORBAT, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7Based on your comments, I've come to the conclusion that you don't in fact have a monkey's brain. It would be an insult to the monkeys to say they're as intelligent as you are.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0Ad hominid attack -> you lose the argument.

            You need to go read some philosophy books to understand the philosophy of science, which underlies science.

            Only then will you understand that the "scientific method" as it is currently formulated via Popperism is based on logical positivism, which cannot be proven scientifically.

            Furthermore, you will see that science is a social and subjective enterprise, which does not diminish its utility, but it does diminish the claim that is the only way to discover truth.
          • johnnysaucepn, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1bentaisan - Popperism is only based on logical positivism in the sense of 'completely rejecting it and doing the exact opposite'.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Ka ...
          • ORBAT, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1First of all, it's ad hominem. "Ad hominid" would be "to the primate", which I find quite fitting in this context.
            You need to seriously consider that you are not, in fact, as smart as you think.
    • Harabeck, on 04/17/2008, -0/+10You do not have a monkey's brain, your brain is related to a common ancestor of a monkey's brain. Learn the difference.

      Also, how one can deny evolution with every observation and breakthrough in any related area of study supports it is beyond me.
      • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -8/+0Obviously you are not familiar with things in literature called similes and metaphors. Nor are you familiar with sarcasm or hyperbole.

        Please learn how to interpret literature before commenting any further on what people should learn.

        Finally, not every observation and breakthrough does support evolution. There are upper limits on the variety that search functions can produce when iterating over a set of genetic data.

        If Darwin's Finches had antennae sprout of their heads from an "adapted" feather, then I would say that it is more probable that they expanded their possible set of expressions. Making a beak change size within a finite and limited set of genetic potentialities falls far short of explaining more complex phenomena, such as the variety of body plans.
        • eviltandem, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5No, it doesn't. The EXACT same method that changes beak sizes can, and does, produce different body plans. It just takes more time.
        • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -6/+0Sorry, there is no proof for that. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

          Now, I know you are going to quote this and cite that, but I can assure you that I am probably already familiar with whatever it is you are going to dredge up.

          There is evidence to the contrary though. A single colony of bacteria has been through several billion (or more) generations in a laboratory since the 1940's and you know what...they are still bacteria. As I am sure you are aware, time really is just a measure of the generations propagating in reference to "evolution". The bacteria have made no progress and have only expressed the combinations and permutations that they had at the very beginning.
          • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5Christ, and I thought you people sounded like idiots when you simply cited the Bible as a credible source. But damn, that's nothing compared to the verbal diarrhea that comes pouring out of your mouth when you attempt to bring your pathetically limited understanding of scientific concepts into the discussion. Please, for your sake, stick to the fairy stories.
          • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wait what? Give a source at least, not that it proves anything. That experiment, as you have explained, is perfectly in line with evolution.
          • eviltandem, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1If the bacteria are still living and doing fine then there would seem to be no force pushing them to evolve into something else. The whole point of evolution is to make you best suited to the environment, not necessarily evolve into something else. If there is not force pushing it to evolve into something more complex, it won't.

            You assume that evolution has a "direction" and that multi-cellular life is it. There isn't, and it's not. Single celled organisms have been around longer and generally are more successful than we are.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0Apparently, every experiment is in line with evolution, whether it is or isn't.

            Evolution=non-falsifiable=dogma

            Please cite your sources and stop the ad hominid attacks.
          • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I will not stop the ad hominem attacks because this whole thing is so utterly absurd! Evolution is a process driven by necessity - no ***** you're not gonna see any changes if the bacteria already have everything they need! What possible purpose could evolution serve in a petri dish where they're safe, secure, and have access to an unlimited supply of food? Ugh... I mean, you denounce evolution without even understanding what, exactly, evolution is!
          • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"Apparently, every experiment is in line with evolution, whether it is or isn't.

            Evolution=non-falsifiable=dogma

            Please cite your sources and stop the ad hominid attacks."

            There must be something wrong with my browser, it's filtering all the source citations out of your posts.
          • eviltandem, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Evolution is falsifiable. For example, if you bred 2 seals together and got an elephant, we'd have a problem. If the DNA of a child wasn't directly mappable to a parent, evolution would have a problem. If our DNA had nothing in common with chimps, evolution would have a problem.

            No single experiment has ever proven evolution wrong.
        • Abaddon1125, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4First you say there is NO evidence, they you go on to tell us they we will cite various scientific articles which, in fact, have tons of evidence? You point out that a strain of bacteria has been living for over 60 years and hasn't become something other than bacteria? How long do you think it took bacteria to evolve into something else in the early years of life? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't 60 years. And to be honest, it may not evolve at all if it is capable of surviving in its environment just fine as it is. You seriously need to go back to school.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0If bacteria cannot "evolve" in 60+ years over billions of generations, why could thirsty finches do it quickly enough in the last 150 years with a much smaller number of generations?

            As with others, you have launched into an ad hominid attack and pulled out the old "you seriously need to go back to school" canard.

            I think you have been in a school and have been fed a bunch of humanist brainwashing.
          • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1@bentaisan What conditions were changed? What changes occurred? What would evolution expect to happen? What does this experiment prove to you? Where is your source for it?

            Do you have anything besides conjecture?

            Note: It's "ad hominem", by the way, and he addressed the substance of your argument, then made a suggestion(a good one at that). That's hardly agumentum ad hominem. I think that you're trying to sound intelligent and well-informed, and failing.
    • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6If you studied psychology, you would know that the human brain is pretty damn unreliable. Hell, the very fact that you reject evolution speaks to that.
      • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -8/+0I never claimed that the human brain is absolutely reliable. There are gestalts, illusions, diseases and all sorts of things that can make it have unreliable percepts.

        However, I have to presuppose that it is generally reliable, or else I wouldn't even bother sitting down to argue anything.
    • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Honestly the phrase "monkey brain" makes me assume you know nothing of evolution and makes my monkey brain cry.
  • brstilson, on 04/17/2008, -7/+23Creationists flooding this thread with 300-year-old arguments and long copy and pastes from the Discovery Institute in 5.....4.....3......2.....
    • pr0verbs, on 04/17/2008, -17/+3300 year-old arguments vs. your 200 year-old-argument... yeah science is always right. That's why science is contantly improving itself by disproving everything it proved previously (I guess that means that the proof wasn't really proof, but that doesn't stop the scientific method from being) Your faith is strong, even I have doubted things from God, but your faith in people is amazing.
      • johnnysaucepn, on 04/17/2008, -0/+16Wow, right on cue. Well done!
      • Harabeck, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9 Evolution is based on a HUGE body of evidence. And your exagerating the amount of revisions anyway.
        • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -9/+0Evidence being interpreted through invalid presuppositions leads to error.
        • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6Bentaisan: exactly. And that's why creationism is wrong.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0You said A implies B, then X. In other words, your statement does not follow from the predicates.

            I think if you said "creationism is wrong, nanny nanny boo boo", it would have been equally valid.
          • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Sure, because it included the statement that creationism is wrong.

            You want to talk about invalid presuppositions though, look at creationists first. They're the ones that start with the conclusion first and try to formulate arguments and evidence to support that, completely opposite of any scientific methodology.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0Some do, some don't.

          • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3I'll believe you when you can show me one creationist who doesn't put the cart before the horse.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0There are many carts and many horses, but a book that provides an alternative Christian viewpoint to YECs (young earth creationists;rigid literalism) is called "Creation and Time" by Hugh Ross.

            Of course, Hugh Ross presupposes a deity exists, which at the start is equally as valid as believing one does not exist.
          • daggah, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Even AiG calls Hugh Ross a liar...lol.
          • bentaisan, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0So you suddenly give credence to AiG?

            Obviously AiG has an ax to grind with Hugh Ross.

            The book is well written, imaginative and generous towards any and all stakeholders. It should be judged on its own merit.

            It is a gentle polemic against YEC.
          • daggah, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1And obviously they both have an axe to grind against truth. I am just commenting on it because it amuses me to see the creationists argue with each other.
      • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+12What faith? Faith implies absence of evidence. If I look up at the sky, and see that it is blue, according to your analogy, you're saying that I'm accepting that the sky is blue on faith. Moreover, faith implies inability to change, even in the presence of evidence which directly contradicts one's beliefs. This is why a scientific theory can NEVER be considered faith. Scientific theories can and do change!
        • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -7/+0Okay, back to the basics.

          Science presupposes that only that which is testable can be considered truth, as a derivative of the innovations of philosophy related to logical positivism.

          However, this presupposition cannot be tested using any objective experiment. Science requires a metaphysical "leap of faith" to even get started.

          I support methodological naturalism, but I oppose metaphysical naturalism.
          • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7That's not faith, that's pragmatism. Is it faith for me to say that I'm in the real world, and not actually trapped inside the Matrix? I cannot test this hypothesis, barring strange people in stylish get-ups offering me pills. And yet, I live my life as if I were in the real world, and not the Matrix. Why? Is it because I have faith that this is real? No. It is because in absence of evidence to the contrary, it is pragmatic for me to accept what I can see, hear, touch, smell and taste as being real.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0Please go touch logic.

            Or for that matter, go touch the number one.
          • Edrick, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1There's a difference between intuitive "leaps of faith" and believing something dogmatically on insufficient evidence. The ol' "you can't *really* prove anything absolutely!" is ignoring the fact we can prove the likeliness of certain claims about reality.
      • eviltandem, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7Dumb people always tickle me. Nobody has ever been born with complete knowledge of how nature works. We use the scientific method to try to understand it. As we learn more, we revise our understanding of how something works.

        Only a very stupid person believes that incorporating new knowledge and facts into working models of the universe somehow invalidates the content. Science works on the best information we have to date. Religion works on the best science we had over 2000 years ago. We've learned a thing or 2 since then.

        2000 years ago nobody would have believed you about cells, atoms, DNA, space, etc... So how is that better than the changing ideas in science that are completely different?
        • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -5/+0There were non-religious people 2000 years ago that believed in evolution.

          Your argument has been demolished.
          • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Not in any theory of evolution that would be recognizable alongside current biology.
          • eviltandem, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I'll concede the point if you provide sources :)
      • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3I'll take science's self-correcting nature over your blind faith any day of the week. At least when we realize science is wrong, we change it. We adjust. When your faith is wrong, you just stick your head in the sand. See: the flood/noah's ark myth, 6,000 year old earth, etc.
        • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -5/+0I cannot argue against what you said because your statement has no content. All you said was "my interpretation of your faith....waaaaahhahaaaa" and "my interpretation of science...yaaaaaaaay".

          • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5More like, you can't argue against what I said because I'm right. Correctable science > incorrectable faith.
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0Hers is my response to that "no, I am right."
          • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3English, *****, do you speak it?
          • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0I am going to rephrase that.

            My statement is, "No, I am right."

            You are launching into an ad hominid attack and it really weakens your argument.
    • WATYF, on 04/17/2008, -6/+8Diggers bringing up the topic of creationism and making tired, lame jokes about it before any of the creationists have even bothered to say a single word in 5.... 4.... 3.... 2....
      • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2Actually, I think for once, the Creationists actually beat out the sarcastic assholes here.
  • Sneakeh, on 04/17/2008, -7/+9In before crazy christian DIGGers.
    • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -11/+1There is nothing crazier that logical positivists.

      Actually, they aren't crazy, they are absurd.

      Everybody wants rationalism, right?

      What is the root word of rationalism? That's right, you know the answer; its ratio.

      So, if there is a ratio, then one has to presuppose a comparison between one being and another being. A chain of these ratios creates a network of knowledge or truth, but eventually, there has to be a being that is indubitable, eternal, present in every place and every time.

      The opposite of this being is absurdity.

      Since I argue that such a being is necessary and not contingent, then the only question is whether this being is personal or impersonal.

      kthxbai
      • johnnysaucepn, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2I love you. Big kisses!
        • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -6/+0Oh thank you. I love you too.

          May I continue to increase in love towards all people.
      • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1LOL, you have to be a troll.
    • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5It's too late, man. Hell, I was expecting a bunch of sarcastic comments poking fun at the Creationists, but damn, the Creationists themselves appear to have swooped in.
      • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -5/+0The term "creationist" generally implies holders of a certain Biblically based interpretation of Genesis.

        It is not proper to use this term to paint everyone with this brush.

        The mere belief in God is called theism. Theists have many varieties and many stances on evolution.

        Orthogonal evolutionists argue that evolution has a purpose whereas as Dawkins and Dennet try to say that it is "unguided and purposeless".

        Non of those points of view are scientific because they are reduced to a "boo hurrah" argument where one side subjectively says "hey, this looks like a botched job of a design" and the other side says "this looks like a purposeful design".

        Dennet will name an organ and explain why engineers would consider it a bad design, but I doubt that Dennet can know all purposes. Therefore, his position that evolution is "purposeless and unguided" is just an opinion or interpretation, not a fact.

        I personally discount orthogonal evolution because I see it as a result of flawed, so-called "Enlightenment" thinking. Science, as it is practiced today by believers and non-believers is stuck in 19th century philosophy and is not up to date with the latest in philosophical thinking.

        So yes, I am a creationist and I am anti-science (as it is currently practiced).

        Dawkins is about 120 years after his time.
        • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5I can and will paint everyone with this brush, because it is my personal belief that "Intelligent Design" is no more than a sham perpetrated by Creationists in an attempt to give the idea scientific credibility.

          I don't see what's wrong with saying that evolution is purposeless. Gravity has no purpose, and yet, given enough interstellar dust, gravity can construct a massive fusion reactor, also known as a star. Convection has no purpose, and yet it can generate absolute massive engines we know as hurricanes. We see examples of complexity arising without any sort of outside guidance all around us; why should evolution be different?
        • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2So in what new form of science can you provide evidence to support creationism? Or is asking for evidence just backward thinking?
        • eviltandem, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Where did you get your phd from?

          Your problem is you are confusing your desires with reality. You desperately want there to be a designer, so you try and fit the data to support that idea. You have absolutely nothing you can point to that irrefutably suggests there might be a purpose or design behind life. Nothing.

          You are stuck on a 2000 year old idea that because you don't understand something there must be a magical god in it. You are stuck in the 0bc philosophy that anything not understood is magic. Yes, and invisible man who hangs out in the sky, willing universes into existance, and not verifiable in any way, is magic.

          You are the only one doing the exact thing you are accusing others of.
  • Brendan2026, on 04/17/2008, -1/+8I live in Philadelphia. This better not interfere with my summer BBQs.
    • serif69, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4BBQ a rare species and use it to explain that humans have evolved to the point where we can use outdoor grills and fire to cook delicious meat. Then you can say that God loves us all and gave us the gift of BBQ to make us happy. That could bring both sides together, because if there's anything we can all agree on, it's that BBQs are awesome.
  • rcarroll215, on 04/17/2008, -6/+122010 will be the year of Intelligent Design! There will be a magic show, free pizza, and a speech by the always thrilling Ben Stein!
    • serif69, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Will the magic show entail God creating subsets of species? Because I'm not going if it doesn't.
    • insomniacal, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Umm, how is Philadelphia NOT a knee-jerk reaction to Ben Stein? You've got it backwards.
    • Logicexe, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4The party will fail because no one at the Discovery Institute actually knows anything about planning parties. Many people will show up, but there won't be any pizza, magic shows or speeches. Many people at the party will insist that there is plenty of Pizza for everybody and depending on who you ask the magic shows and speeches are either coming soon or have already taken place. When people start pointing out that their party is nothing more than a bunch of people standing in a room looking at each other awkwardly the Discovery Institute will claim academic persecution and call anyone who didn't like their "party" a Nazi.
    • CapnMarko, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1What's the matter Private Joker? Don't you believe in the Virgin Mary?

      I sure hope Chaplin Charlie will be there ...
  • oblique63, on 04/17/2008, -5/+7Take THAT Ben Stein!
  • panzermeyer, on 04/17/2008, -6/+8unpossible, a book says some sky wizard made the earth. Though the book was written hundreds of years later about some dude who said it was so, a lot of people believe to be true, because books never lie! L.O.L kthnx

    im sure to get buried o nose.
  • chrgrose, on 04/17/2008, -6/+10The creationists wont be happy!

    Mission accomplished.
    • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1Yup, Obama is probably a lil offended by this.
      • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Is this the new talking point? I know the quote you're talking about, it's a pretty big reach.
  • MortalynFlux, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3They should do like an "Evolve" festival and tour.
  • Vileputrid, on 04/17/2008, -9/+0In b4 religious retards waaaaaaaaaaaaa about this
  • pr0verbs, on 04/17/2008, -18/+2Yay! It's Darwin's birthday? Now science can finally move forward with theories that work... oh wait... 200 years old... Do you mean to tell me that the feces theory was not prevelant enough to show us that science has finally got it right. *****!
  • reuscel, on 04/17/2008, -3/+12Correction to everyone saying "evolution isn't random." The actual genetic mutation that leads to evolution can be seen as somewhat random, but the effect of natural selection that makes that mutation a competitive advantage for a species is not.

    I have a serious problem with evolution nay-sayers, but I understand how they can be so myopic. Evolution takes place over millions and millions of years, and the effects of it can rarely be seen within a generation. If your worldview told you that the world was only 7000 years old, you'd probably have trouble wrapping your head around that idea too. So many of these people just believe that God just waved a magic wand, and people came about. They probably use the same thinking with evolution (ie. "an ape gave birth to a baby human one day and BAM, human beings"), and that may be why they have so much trouble understanding it.
    • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -5/+26,000 years can be a long time according to Obama.

      Remember he is a creationist, he believes God created the earth, he just isnt sure whether it took 6 24 hour days.

      Yes I know he also told a group of Astronomers that he believed in evolution.

      So where does that leave us?

      I guess it leaves us with Evolution is the method, and God is the designer of the method.

      That way both sides win, which also means that BOTH should be taught in schools?

      You cant have it both ways, either you dont believe in god which is your right, or you do believe in God and that he designed evolution.
      The ones who dismiss all science are just as wrong as the ones who dismiss God or a supreme being/designer. Even Einstien believed in a "designer".

      That being said why are Evolutionist so against teaching both?
      • SauceSpot, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5intelligent design is not science its a belief or faith that some unknown force created the world, hence should not be taught as science.
        • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1I didnt say it should be taught as science, in the same way many astronomical "theories" that are taught in school have not been proven.

          Remember we were taught for centuries that PLUTO was a planet....by scientist.
          • SauceSpot, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1science is s process of finding answers. it is never definite and can always change to fit new evidence or is dropped completely. as with religious beliefs stay absolute with no questioning even when faced with contradicting evidence, that is not science and should not be taught along side it.

            The way you use "theories" make it sound like its just a guess or belief. i think you mean a hypothesis which in science is a guess or question asking why something is this or that. then from experimenting and observation can a theory be formed whether it proves the hypothesis true or not. So when you hear about science theories, most likely they have been tested, experimented, observed in such a way where a sound theory is formed not just guess pulled from a hat which people wish is true.
            even then theories can still be questioned or changed.
          • TheCatsPants, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1First, Pluto was just reclassified, it wasn't the "theory that Pluto should be called a planet". Second, if we didn't amend our theories as we got new information and evidence we'd never get anywhere. Science is a powerful tool precisely because it can change theories, or even have several competing theories. To be honest, if they did teach kids about ID in science class, all that would happen is that ID would start to look stupid - because it's not science!
        • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Sure, teach creationism...in a religious class. And be sure to cover all the creation myths, not just the Abrahamic one.
          • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Im OK with that, look Im not endorsing religion, Im simply being fair to both sides.

            I certainly don't endorse any form of organized religion, I'm more of a good force/bad force guy when it comes to religion.

            I tend to agree with Einstein on the matter.
          • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I don't think you know how Einstein felt about it.

            And stop misrepresenting Obama. Liars get no respect from me.
          • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1Im not misrepresenting Obama, Im quoting him.

            Thats what I dont get about you guys, HE says something then you twist it to conform to your beliefs so that you dont have to face the facts of what he said.

            He said that GOD created the earth, he said he didnt think it took 6 human days but 6 God days...whatever that means.

            I actually agree with the guy, thats the funny part.
          • TheCatsPants, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1@jointventure
            I think Obama meant that he doesn't take the bible literally, and that you can believe in God and accept evolution. He was trying to reassure less religious people that he is not a bible-nut while trying not to upset the more, em, reality-challenged.
        • EarlOfLade, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2"Planet" is just an arbitrary description we, humans, assign to certain celestial bodies. It has not other function than as how to classify rocky space objects.

          Let's invent a new one"dwarf planets". Pluto, example of said. Rocky objects too small to be a planet, but too bug to be called an astroid.
          • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1Look, you're twisting it, the point is that scientist have been wrong time after time, to take everything they say as fact is the highest form of ignorance.

            In the same way taking what some book says as fact is ignorance.
          • Abaddon1125, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3And creationists have never been right. That means science still wins.
        • Pigeon, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3@JointVenture.

          Thats the beauty of science. Everything changes based on new evidence, new theories and new tests.

          Religion tells you what is 'right' and gives no thought to new ideas or evidence.
          • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1I dont believe in religion as fact, its a guide created by man.

            I do however believe in (insert one of thousands of names for god/supreme being/or something we cant name yet) being responsible for life on earth.
      • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1He said that's we told his kids. Whats your point?
        • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1So he was lying? Wtf is wrong with you people, you scare me when you cant even see PRINT or hear what he says on video.

          Its spooky.
          • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2To his kids? Oh nos! Quick, get CNN on this. He might have lied about Santa Claus.
  • Billions, on 04/17/2008, -6/+6Evolution celebration, Bush out of office... I'm liking the looks of 2009!
  • lickmylovepump, on 04/17/2008, -4/+3yay! 2009 is the year of the flying pigs!! and for an encore, 2010 will be the year of faith in no faith!!!
  • JimmySpaza, on 04/17/2008, -23/+5No problem as long as they talk about ALL the aspects of evolutionary theory including:

    * how modern proponents of the theory will not allow any conclusions to point to non-natural causes...thus possibly shoe-horn-fitting a conclusion just to keep it solely in the realm of natural processes.

    * how there are estimated to have been literally billions of species since abiogenesis is thought to have created the first life form 2 billion years ago...but how the fossil record only reveals about 0.1% of them.

    * how circular thinking has crept into this theory - ex. this fossil is 500,000 years old because it was found in 500,000 year-old strata...and we know that the strata is 500,000 years old because we found a 500,000 year-old fossil in it.

    The bottom line is that no creationist that I know of would have any problem with this display as long as ALL assumptions, restrictions, and parameters of the theory are made known.

    It's all about the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, not just the portions that the proponents of evolutionary theory want discussed.
    • Logicexe, on 04/17/2008, -3/+10So many misconception in one brain.

      - Many modern biologists do in fact read creationist literature and criticize them regularly. Remember, the thing about science is that while free speech is important, the freedom to criticize is even more important. Without criticism the entire peer review process breaks down. The creationists have had their chances to compete on a level playing field, they failed. As for injecting god into evolution, why would they do that? The theory functions just fine without an unknowable, undefined, unobservable designer, why put that in when it's not necessary? Which makes more sense 2+2=4 or (2+2)^GOD=4?

      - I don't know where you're getting your numbers, however the general idea is consistent with our understanding of evolution and fossilization. Fossilization is extremely rare. It almost never happens. The reason we have the fossils that we have is because there were literally trillions of chances for living things to get fossilized.

      - There is no circular thinking. Scientists do sometimes use rocks or fossils of a known age as a shortcut or estimation but the science behind dating rocks absolutely reliable and well known. It's nuclear physics, the exact same understanding of physics that led to the development of the H-bomb led to the dating methods currently used.

      Stop reading creationist propaganda. If you really want to learn about evolution pick up a biology textbook. Learn about paleontology. Read what the scientists have to say about evolution. I'm not a scientist, so I can't go into super high detail on these matters, my understanding is somewhat superficial, but the detailed answers to your questions are widely available. You just need to look for them.
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/18/2008, -6/+2You didn't (couldn't?) refute anything I posted...only said "nope, we're right, you're not". Your post was not helpful at all.
        • Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5And all you did was simply assert that there is speculation and controversy where none exists. I explained to you why your assertions were wrong.

          Seriously, go to your local library. Take out some books on Paleontology, Biology, Genetics, Geology, Nuclear Physics or anything on the philosophy of science. Heck, you could even go to talkorigins.org if you don't have a library in close proximity.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/19/2008, -6/+2Been there, done that. Evolutionary theory is long on speculation and assumptions...short on hard, scientifically-verifiable evidence.
          • daggah, on 04/19/2008, -2/+4You cannot make a comment like that and still expect people to see you as a serious, honest debater, Jimmy. It's simply not true that evolution is lacking supporting evidence. The evidence for evolution is literally overwhelming, and it's certainly telling that the ONLY people who disagree with it have a religious motive for doing so.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/19/2008, -3/+2@daggah

            Read my post again. I didn't say that evolutionary theory doesn't have ANY supporting evidence, now did I?

            It does...but not enough to establish as a FACT that life evolved from an initial life form (now assumed to be a proto-bacteria) to human being in 2 billion years.
          • daggah, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2You don't even know what evolution covers. It doesn't include abiogenesis. You couldn't even get THAT right.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/20/2008, -2/+2@ daggah

            I didn't say that abiogenesis was part of the theory of evolution. Now, you're making up stuff again. Sheesh.

            And you never did produce any facts or refute anything...just complained. Typical. End of discussion. Too bad. So sad. Bye bye sweetums.
          • yodaj007, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Daggah, learn this and learn this well: Jimmy is little more than a troll. He'll continue arguing you till your blue in the face and then some. He thrives off it. Learn it and learn it well.
    • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6"* how modern proponents of the theory will not allow any conclusions to point to non-natural causes...thus possibly shoe-horn-fitting a conclusion just to keep it solely in the realm of natural processes."

      We know of natural processes. We don't know of supernatural ones. Apply Occam's Razor, and, ta-da! Non-natural causes are clearly useless. The assertion that a non-natural cause is not verifiable, so in science such an assertion is useless. It'd be like asserting that gravity is just god pulling down on objects. Even if it's true, so what? That doesn't tell us anything useful.

      "* how there are estimated to have been literally billions of species since abiogenesis is thought to have created the first life form 2 billion years ago...but how the fossil record only reveals about 0.1% of them."

      That's because the process required for fossilization isn't exactly "merciful." What's your point?

      "* how circular thinking has crept into this theory - ex. this fossil is 500,000 years old because it was found in 500,000 year-old strata...and we know that the strata is 500,000 years old because we found a 500,000 year-old fossil in it."

      That's a straight-up fabrication. You're not just another creationist liar are you? Like Logicexe said, dating methods have been proven reliable for a long time now. And they weren't proven by circular reasoning either.

      "The bottom line is that no creationist that I know of would have any problem with this display as long as ALL assumptions, restrictions, and parameters of the theory are made known."

      *****. The fact that evolution is so well-supported and has been for ages is proof that simple reasoning doesn't work on creationists. You're talking about a body of people that believe frauds like "Dr." Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/18/2008, -7/+2You didn't refute anything with contrary facts or evidence, merely saying "nope, you're wrong".

        About the only concrete thing you mentioned was fossilization. And my point is that extrapolating an entire evolutionary tree, and then asserting it as evolutionary FACT, is a little tough to swallow when all you have is 0.1% or less of all possible supposed data points.
        • daggah, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3It's a good thing there are other realms of biology that also contribute evidence then, and it's really funny how they all produce evidence consistent with what we already thought happened because of the fossil record!

          And speaking of not refuting anything...
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/19/2008, -3/+2So, YOU don't know for yourself, do you? All you know is what others are saying, huh? Sounds like you have only a little FAITH to go on, right?
          • daggah, on 04/19/2008, -2/+4No, dumbass, I've read up on the topic at hand. I have a decent grasp on the science involved. I didn't accept anything because someone said so, I accept scientific fact because the overwhelming evidence from all areas of biology point to the same conclusion.

            The only one accepting anything because someone said so is you. And the sad reality is, the people you are listening to are LIARS.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/20/2008, -4/+2@daggah

            You admit that you have lost the argument since you use bad language AND have never presented one piece of evidence, any facts, nor even tried to refute my assertions.

            Your spineless little soundbites work great on television, but are looked up with ridicule here and in the scientific community.

            Present the evidence...if you can. But, you cannot since you don't know what you're talking about.

            All you have is FAITH in what others say.

            I presented the assertion that evolutionary theory is weak because it promotes the idea that all life came from one original organism but has only 0.1% or so fossil evidence of all possible life forms to back it up.

            ...and the best reply you have is "No, dumbass, I've read up on the topic at hand."???

            LOL!

            Go see Expelled in the movie theaters. It will open your eyes to reality. Good luck.
          • daggah, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Lost the argument? Evolution is still fact and ID is still not science. I refuted your original claims and you ignored my rebuttals completely. So I have a dilemma. I can spend my time putting together the evidence for you, perhaps pointing out the fact that human evolution, for example, is one of the best documented examples of evolutionary history of a species, or discussing the cytochrome C protein, or perhaps talking about a particular chromosome in human genetics that is the result of two chromosomes being fused together with fused telomeres in the middle, and how this particular chromosome matches up with two chromosomes we find in members of the ape family. I can discuss "junk" DNA. I can discuss the concept of convergent evidence that really solidifies evolutionary biology. I can discuss punctuated equilibrium and how creationists have dishonestly and deliberately misquoted Gould and his colleagues on the topic. I can discuss the fraudulent credentials of nearly every public figure in the various creationist camps. I can point out that evolutionary biology stopped being controversial in the scientific community over a century ago.

            But I understand something basic about creationists: the only way to be one is to be either ignorant of the scientific facts, or to be a close-minded liar. The latter is the kind of creationist that produces propaganda like 'Expelled.' I haven't decided which type you are yet, but I think it's a mixture of both. Like most creationists, it simply isn't worth the time to discuss evidence with you. No matter what facts are presented, your mind is made up. You'll critique science that you don't even understand and accuse me of having faith, and you'll do whatever you have to to ensure that your own faith be left unmolested by inconvenient truth.

            So you tell me, why should I waste my time on you? Why should I take the time to write up a comprehensive post here on digg?
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/20/2008, -4/+1@ daggah

            You refuted nothing...just whined. You say that you can discuss all sorts of things, such as "junk" DNA...but you never have...just whined some more.

            It's obvious you don't care or are simply pretending to know.

            Either way, bye bye. I tried to discuss this stuff with you...but all you did was complain and never present any facts. This is typical of the many so-called "evolutionists" that I tried to debate both in school and in society. They talk the talk but cannot walk the walk. You're no different.

            Have a blessed day, sweetums.
    • TheCatsPants, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5"strengths and weaknesses of the theory"
      And so the strengths and weaknesses of ID would be examined in detail too, alongside the evolutionary interpretation? Fine. But I don't think that would have the effect you are hoping for. If you do that to ID, all that will happen is that ID will be shown to be an untestable philosophy. The point about looking for supernatural causes is that as soon as you introduce that into science then it's no longer testable, and therefore is no longer science. For example: that cancer might have been caused by a genetic event, but it might have been caused by God and it just *looks* like a genetic event. Don't you think the enlightenment was a good thing for mankind?
      • JimmySpaza, on 04/18/2008, -6/+4Enlightenment in some cases was a great thing. In others, not very good at all.

        Anyway, do you really live your life not believing in ANYTHING unless it is scientifically testable and repeatable under controlled conditions? Please. There is more to knowledge and reality than a laboratory.
        • dondara, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5"There is more to knowledge and reality than a laboratory."
          No, there isn't. Belief is for children and morons.
        • talonstriker, on 04/18/2008, -2/+5I agree with you to a certain extent. But basing your whole life on a seemingly false beleif is little more than insanity.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/19/2008, -6/+2You can scientifically test the Bible, you know? Have you tried?

            OK. Here's a good first step. Take the Old Testament prophecies. Look at many of their fulfillments in the New Testament.

            We know from Biblical manuscripts that the Old Testament that we have today is about 99.5% the same as 2,000 years ago or better. And we know that the New Testament that we have today is about 99% or so accurate to about 2,000 years ago also.

            How do you explain the New Testament fulfilling the Old Testament?

            You cannot say it was faked. THAT assertion is not even used by Biblical skeptics anymore due to archeology, literary critiques, and other science.
          • TheCatsPants, on 04/19/2008, -2/+5So the proof that the bible is true is.....the bible.
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/19/2008, -4/+2@ TheCatsPants

            No, the proof of the supernatural authorship of the Bible is the existence of provable prophecies which came true...as supported by non-Biblical evidence.
          • talonstriker, on 04/19/2008, -2/+5proof my ass. Most of these prophecies are "true" because they're too vague and can be applied to anything from toilet paper to space exploration. That being said, there are other religious texts with prophecies that came "true" as well... what say you to that?
          • JimmySpaza, on 04/20/2008, -4/+1@ talonstriker

            Please provide actual evidence to back up your assertions. You will need to provide the Old Testament and New Testament verses themselves showing how they are "too vague", etc. etc.

            Dude, why do you think that I am a Christian? It's because of evidence like these prophecies.

            OK. Let's try this. Take a look.

            http://www.100prophecies.org
          • talonstriker, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4@jimmy, Sorry if I offended you by calling you a christian. You certainly give one the feeling that you are one!
            Ok, I'll have a go at one of them: 7. Egypt would never again rule over nations
            Bible passage: Ezekiel 29:15
            Written: between 593-571 BC
            http://www.100prophecies.org/page2.htm
            Fairly easy one to refute. Here's the map of egypt in 30 B.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ancient_Egypt_m ...
            Egypt is considerably larger today. Hence it has grown, this is in contradiction to prophecy....or atleast it has not yet been fulfilled.
            Looking at some of the claims of the website, its filled with logical fallacies. Firstly, almost every one of them is the same prophecy that is reworded. Secondly, according to the site many of the prophecies have been fulfilled in the bible itself...see the fallacy here
  • jinsundo, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Mankind shall evolve by watching alota sports, getting that SUV, getting pissa** drunk, and then listening to that wise, wise, sage who is known throughout the universe as Dr Phil.
  • Hetman, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3To be honest it is not worth it. Im fine with them having a new exibtions and things like that. But just calling it the year of evolution celebration is going to make crazy evangelists be like "Yea I told you evolution was a religion, look you guys are celebrating it like its a religion etc." It is just now worth the press that it is going to give them.
    • insomniacal, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1At last, someone who sees the public charade for what it is: bling!
  • macweirdo42, on 04/17/2008, -3/+5Friggin' religious people! This is a clear example of faith, right here. You have a belief, that the Earth was created over a 7-day period roughly 6,000 years ago. We have clear, undeniable evidence that speaks against that belief. In the face of that, however, you reject the evidence and go with the belief! And then you have the audacity to accuse rationally-minded people of having faith! Do you see the difference? While we, as rationally-minded people, may have a pretty darn good idea about evolution, if evidence were to come along that directly contradicts that theory, we would not cling desperately to that theory - we would revise.
    • bentaisan, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Friggin bigots...
    • YoshinoAiki, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Not everyone who believes in creation and in God also believes that it took 7 days, as we percieve them, and that it happened 6000 years ago.
  • AtheistRev, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Maybe we are Evolving?
    http://www.atheistrevolution.com
  • Cerialthriller, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4funny thing is that in philadelphia there isnt a creationist problem
    • YoshinoAiki, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0Right, just an evolutionist problem? They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive you know. There are those that believe that evolution was used in creation.
    • SQLserver, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1The epidemic hasn't gotten here yet.
  • infinityredux, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that
    1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys
    2.Even Darwin said his theories were wrong before he died so why do you still believe them
    3.do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years
    4.how come we cant speak monkey
    Just for a fact ape like creatures are monkeys Just in case certain people get on this thread
    • Hetman, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3We have a common ancestors with monkeys We did not evolve from them. And you bring up a good point about not being able to speak monkey though. It could be that our ancestors who were able to communicate better than the rest of their ancestors were able to reproduce more and past down more of their genes. Eventually after enough time our vocal chords changed enough so that we were capable of making more complex sounds than our ancestors. Basically cutting us off from ever speaking monkey.
    • daggah, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4The story that Darwin said his theories are wrong before he died is a lie. As to the rest, it's pointless to argue with someone so ignorant of basic evolutionary biology.
    • YoshinoAiki, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Copy and paste anyone? http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=166884 ...

      Whether Darwin said his theories are wrong or not is irrelevant, as are all of those questions that were copied and pasted in Infinity's comment.
    • AaronSTL, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3If only piecing together a rational thought were a little less difficult and accessing the Internet were a little more, the online world would be an entirely better place.
  • rampancy, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3So guys...how about that scientific theory of creationism/intelligent design?

    Oh wait, all you have to offer is "Poof! My god did it", right?
    • noliberalbull, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1...and all you've got is "poof, something blew up and it was all here"... then "poof, life existed"... then "poof, life evolved"... that takes no faith at all... right.
      • orangetiki, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3I think it's more along the lines of poof study of animals with various different attributes that change over time ( by the way they are still changing. Even the fact that more humans are becoming lactose tolerant can be construed as an evolution of man). Poof study of dinosaurs and what was previous ***** sapiens. Poof gravity over millions of years bringing together cosmic mass to create planets. I'd buy that over a dude in sandals / some other guy wrote something in a book and I'm to believe it
        • YoshinoAiki, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0Much of what you believe comes from something in a book that some other guy wrote. And calling Jesus some dude in sandals trivializes everything He did and robs you of a chance to expand your understanding.
          Unless of course you are referring to some other dude in sandals, but even then you would be trivializing that dude as well.
      • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Yes we have no proof whatsoever for it. Researchers just sit around all day burning bibles and circle jerking.
  • insomniacal, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1More bling. Dic to the Doc to the PhD!
  • buggles, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1I'm going to have a year of "I'm Rich!" because I really really want it to be true.
    • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2If you have as much evidence to back you up as evolution(which has more than gravity) then go for it.
  • rodrigo74, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5If a museum tried to make a "celebration" like this here in Norway, people would ask "What else? Celebrate gravity?"

    It's a sad state the US finds itself in.
  • SonicEarth, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Take that, christianity.
    • Witchbaby, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1haha.
    • YoshinoAiki, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Evolution isn't an argument against Christianity, nor is a year celebrating Evolution.
      • chvnx, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Of course it is. Evolution destroys the Christian myth of Creation, which is key to their religion.
        Jews, Christians and Muslims = EPIC FAIL.
  • tiny40505, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Eh, starts on my b-day next year. Might take a trip up there to see it for ***** and giggles.
  • Witchbaby, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3*sniff*

    Darwin would be so proud.
  • MrColdheart, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1April 19, 2008 through May 2009

    so.... the year of evolution starts this year
    i will def try and stop by one of those events I live near Philly
  • Slvrgun, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0Has anybody considered the possibility of God and evolution coexisting. Of course scientifically we cannot prove that God exists nor can we prove that he doesn't, but it doesn't mean a designer, architect, creator should not be considered beyond the realms of science. And I hate it when people make claims about some imaginary being who created the Universe in a week? What is a week? Is it not a human defined time frame? Do you see how this could create problems trying to convey a relative measurement. Time is what ever you make it.
    • rodrigo74, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3"Has anybody considered the possibility of God and evolution coexisting"

      Which one? Shiva? Odin? Tupã? Baal?

      "Time is what ever you make it."

      Just like your god.
    • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3None of this is a problem. Just can't be taught as science. Cool?
  • orangetiki, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2hooray higher education
  • tehbored, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Suck it creationists!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.