What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
484 Comments
- GDOG5, on 01/06/2009, -18/+86Digg this if you reckon evolution is true
- angusware, on 01/06/2009, -8/+45You can believe whatever you want, but keep it the ***** away from our science classrooms.
- johnhummel, on 01/06/2009, -2/+36Ah, ye olde Pascal's wager: if you don't believe in God you go to Hell forever, if you do you go to Heaven. Therefore, it's a better bet to believe in God than not.
Which completely ignores the question: what if God hates liars more? If I don't believe in God but say I do only because I'm afraid if I don't I might go to Hell - wouldn't God hate me more? After all, one of the 10 commandments are "thou shall not lie" - and wouldn't God prefer people who were at least honest saying "I don't believe in God because of bad evidence", rather than some chicken ***** who lied their way into Heaven claiming belief when they didn't? - insomniacal, on 01/06/2009, -3/+28Evolution "ennobles" life? Why, because we say it does?
Sorry to be nihilistic, but evolution is not improvement, it's change. Call it noble if you must, just warn people you're stretching beyond science by adding a layer of subjective polish.
The debate hinges on the proper nature and role of science, and moral/ideological terms like "noble" only add confusion. - johnhummel, on 01/06/2009, -3/+26@pushforpeacepushforpeace:
After 4 years of seminary training, I'd say I do.
The poster brought up the scriptural reference that man should live by faith. That if you don't just use faith, and instead use your own reason and fail to "glorify God", you'll be sinning (that's the "no excuse" part)- and as we all "know", sinning means you go to Hell. So, if you don't want to sin and go to hell, you'd better stop poking your nose into anything. God - who knows everything (even the invisible things) and will show them unto people when he's good and ready, knows it all, so don't go investigating. Instead, just believe, and stop being so nosy.
It's Pascal's wager - believe and go to Heaven, don't believe and go to Hell. So you might as well believe. Personally, after a long time, I've decided that I'd much rather be an honest person and say out loud that I don't believe in god - that I'd much rather be a good person because it makes sense rather than fearing the judgments of some invisible sky man. And if god is a jackass who sends people to Hell for spending their lives doing good things, well - then that's not the kind of being who would be deserving of my worship. - Ciryon, on 01/06/2009, -0/+23There is an article in Norwegian newspapers today about Codfish mutating as we speak. There are now 2 different species in our waters and 1 of them thrives in warmer waters than the other. I don't care what your believes are, evolution is a fact.
Article in Norwegian:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/01/06/nyheter/miljo/t ...
Google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&ie ... - SkullPizza, on 01/06/2009, -6/+28Hey if I write a book that makes up a bunch of B.S. and then say things like, "You must believe even when the smartest among you say otherwise." does that make my book true as well?
Just because people realized that many would speak against what they had written doesn't make them prophets. Religious doubt has been around for as long as religion has been. Science just upped the ante when it exploded over the past two hundred years and make religious folks look like fools playing catch up.
Now intelligent(or not so much) religious people cling to caveats like the quotes shown above as if they are some kind of validation for their silly imaginings. - RyomaNagare, on 01/06/2009, -1/+22the problem is not religion per se, or believing in god, the problem are dogmatic religions that want to avoid answering uncomfortable questions.
a good religions should suffice spiritual needs, but also encourage the process of asking yourself these questions, faith is the ability to conciliate the logical answers, that new knowledge grants us. with what you believe in. all religions that try to impose centuries' backwards morals and ideas are doomed to die off, the ones that adapt these basic moral ideas to the modern times are the ones that can still fill a niche in human spirituality.
I myself come from a traditional jewish family, and a scientific background, and had never a problem conciliating my belief with scientific method or explanations. - TotalHalibut, on 01/06/2009, -0/+20You'll find that the vast majority of modern Christians accept science and evolution just as readily as anyone else. Young earth creationism is a fringe-belief with no basis in fact, and to be honest, rather embarrassing to the rest of us.
- HumanNouveau, on 01/06/2009, -2/+20Any magical explanations in religion are incompatible with science.
There are no discontinuous steps -- no uncaused effects or supernatural causes. There are only limits on what we have perceived so far. Superstition fills in a gap with one kind of stuff, while science spans it with another.
They are not compatible. - Nerys, on 01/06/2009, -2/+20People always say that. Evolution by Natural selection as if Evolution is a "thing"
It's not. That's why arguing against it is so silly.
Evolution is simply a descriptor of a process like "addition" addition is not a "thing" it simply describes the process of summing more than 1 number together. Its like saying yes I agree 1+1=2 but I don't believe in addition?
Does that not cross people as ludicrous? !
Saying evolution by natural selection is like saying addition by summing. Is there another way?
You have Mutation and Natural Selection that's it.
There can be no argument that we have mutation
There can be no argument that we have natural selection
these are both blatantly obvious and clearly accurate things that OCCUR in nature.
Evolution is simply the "descriptor" of both of these processes in action.
Something "mutates" if that mutation is superior to the competition then critters with that mutation have a higher tendency to survive in the long run which is natural selection.
This repeating process is called evolution. That's it. its not a "thing" its not "separate" there is no intelligence or "choosing" going on.
It's just the combination of Mutation and Natural selection as a process.
I have NEVER understood why religion has such a problem with this. it does not disprove god nor does it even disprove intelligent design.
If you believe in god then you simply believe that mutation and natural selection aka evolution is gods design.
whats the big deal? - cmotdibbler, on 01/06/2009, -2/+20So what happens if any of these gods; Quetzalcoatl, Bacchus, Odin, Marduk, Baal, Allah, Zeus, Tiamat, Isis (you get the idea) represent the one "true" path to heaven?
- MonkeyOverlord, on 01/06/2009, -3/+20People tend to lump too much into evolution. There are three separate issues that get unfortunately lumped together:
1) How did the Earth/universe come into existence?
2) How did life start?
3) How did life get to where it is today?
Evolution explains only #3. It's important to realize that. #2 is about "abiogenesis" versus creationism, not evolution versus creationism.
This distinction matters because Christian theology actually has few quarrels with evolution itself, only abiogensis and the big bang theory. In fact, an expansive reading of the doctrines of God's sovereignty and God's role as a creator guiding the natural forces with an unseen hand are compatible with microevolution, and even to a decent extent, macroevolution. To a Reformed Protestant, transpeciation is just a sign of God's continued investment in His creation.
So really, an atheist would have to prove that God's hand is not the force driving the change in species to a Reformed Protestant like me. I don't deny that species evolve and even new species arise. Where we disagree is on the matter of what is the primary cause behind the evolving nature of life on Earth. - Esstee, on 01/06/2009, -1/+17This is precisely why Creationism is the laughing stock of world.
There just isn't any good way to put it, It's downright foolishness front to back.
Sure... God can whatever he wants...
But for some stupid reason, Creationists believe that though God was harmonious in everything that he did, the creation account was one of his best tricks ever. Sweep all the evidence under the rug while we torture the people into conflict hmmm?
there's only one way to put this: *****' sad my friend. - inactive, on 01/06/2009, -0/+15
I find that what the Chicago businessman said is quite indicative of the real danger behind creationism. The fact that it raises people to ignore evidence. To ignore observable fact. To ignore valid arguments, all in favour of what they ''believe''. If you don`t think this is harmful, just imagine what would happen if this way of thinking was implemented in the judicial system.In my opinion, the word "belief'' does not belong into any kind of scientific dialogue. Belief is what you cannot prove. If you can prove it, then it`s fact, and belief is redundant. Science is about what you can prove, it doesn`t care what you believe in. I wouldn`t mind if these people found evolution to be implausible based of, for example, lack of evidence. But the fact is, no amount of evidence will ever be enough for them, because they`ve already made up their minds, and they expect everyone else to agree with them, just because they say so. This is not how science works. No real scientist will expect you to agree with him until he proves his hypothesis.
I would also like to point out another thing that I find ridiculous about creationists. They don`t ''believe'' in carbon dating. But here`s the thing. The knowledge of radioactive elements, their nature and decomposition is tied to our ability to produce nuclear weapons. So if you don`t ''believe'' in carbon dating, that means what? They don`t ''believe'' in radiation poisoning? Is what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki fictional for them??
There is also the issue of DNA. They refuse to acknowledge DNA based evidence of evolution. Then how do they possibly find DNA evidence to be admissible in court?? You cannot ''believe'' in one part of the equation, and not ''believe'' in the other. This is not how REAL science works.
In the minds of these people, thing that are mutually exclusive exist together at the same time. If they were a computer, they would be showing blue screen ALL THE TIME. - jimminy, on 01/06/2009, -10/+24Just ignore the creationists. They don't have anything worth discussion.
Of course we have to fight against creationist education because it is nonsense and nonsense doesn't belong in our children's schools. - o0joshua0o, on 01/06/2009, -0/+13It would be useful to believe that there is a magic elf who will punish you every time you use the bathroom without washing your hands, but that doesn't mean we should encourage people to believe that.
Truth is more important than utility. - MemorabIename, on 01/06/2009, -1/+13"Saying evolution by natural selection is like saying addition by summing. Is there another way?"
Uh, artificial selection? Genetic drift? - Spirckle, on 01/06/2009, -2/+14Me 4:20 The problem with religion is that it creates people with shallow morality. That is not to say the religious man has no morals, but that he is not driven to investigate morality independent of religion and as a result is limited to rigid formulations that do not prepare him to live up to his full moral potential.
4:21 Does the religious man ask himself thus, If God created lust why does He call it unclean? Unless it was a mistake, oh wait, God does not create mistakes... Oh wait He created corruptible man, but birds and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things aren't corruptible..oh, except if you are two of the world's 'great' religions and the beast is one of the 'unclean' variety.
4:22 And what of the great religions? What if you are born into one of the wrong two? But how do you know? How would you recognize the right one? Easy, if the wrong two just said "Behold, we are of the wrong religion"... But unfortunately... You get the picture.
4:23 If by almost unanimous agreement, at least two of the great religions are wrong, what is the chance that the third is wrong also?
4:24 If you were to truly study and understand evolution and how it works, you would also understand that it is such a beautiful and powerful idea that if it did not exist, God would have to create it. - JeremyGrieves, on 01/06/2009, -4/+16Doesn't matter how many of these articles they write the people you are trying to convince have their fingers in their ears and their eyes closed.
- cquinnd, on 01/06/2009, -0/+11Who do you believe is pushing the "Man from Monkey part"? (Hint, its the creationists themselves).
We have the evidence that all living organisms on earth share common traits. For most of those cases the trait is DNA.
Why that DNA is a common trait can be explained from one of two perspectives in this debate: (A) A scientifically unproven higher being created the organisms with DNA as a common trait for some unexplained reason, or (B) All these organisms are somehow related and at some point in the distant past shared a common link, which is backed up by research findings in other areas of scientific study.
Is it "better" to actually look for the answer to a question based on the evidence you have on hand; or to just credit some unknown force or factor, and assume that there is no greater importance in understanding the how and why of that common trait? - Flamekebab, on 01/06/2009, -0/+11Having taken some time to read through your comment history, attackc0de, I hope that none of the "pre-teenage crowd" here on Digg become anything like you, especially if you are suggesting that ignoring science leads to a better life.
- idontlikeyou2, on 01/06/2009, -1/+12The onus of proof is on you, if you think god had a hand in this, you have to prove it. The point of science is falsability. I know you religious folks and right wingers love to clump groups into atheist etc .. but that doesn't hide your infinitely more implausible theory of a magical space god.
- HumanNouveau, on 01/06/2009, -1/+12They call it "miracles." But it's the same as magic really. Only difference I can detect is that in Christian magic, God is the only magician and the rest of the players just sort of direct or convey the magic.
Remove the magic/miracles from a religion and you're left with an ethical/moral philosophy. That's fine. There is no incompatibility between a system of ethics and science, although, empirically, some such systems may provide better outcomes on a more consistent basis than others. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/06/2009, -0/+11The normal refutation of Pascal's Wager is about how, since there exists no objective evidence for any god or gods, so you must include all possible gods into the matrix of possibilities. However, there also exists no objective or empirical evidence about the desires of any god or gods, so this refutation is just as valid (though not as dramatic).
- EarlOfLade, on 01/06/2009, -2/+13Woohoo! Look at me! I can quote from a collection of 2000+ year old goat herder and camel driver scif books! I am so cool but I can not use my own brain to think with, it's only a copypasta brain!
- inactive, on 01/06/2009, -1/+12"I guess we'll find out after we die if your logic holds up."
_____________
If there is, in fact, any need of logic "after death", it isn't really "death" now, is it? - nick111, on 01/06/2009, -4/+15Oh indeed. We've reached a point now though where this has become a liability.
God-meme's may be good for villages or tribes or even nations, but when your sphere of potential destruction is global, the last thing you need is large numbers of people motivated by things that aren't true. - bsmang, on 01/06/2009, -0/+11Omg.. After 1 hr and 38 min, you got +22 and -10... I expected a much better ratio. There really are too many religious nutters out there.
- cquinnd, on 01/06/2009, -1/+11"Evolution" is a catch-all for many opposing theories."
There is your discrediting statement.
Evolution is not a catch-all, the only ones who make that claim are the people trying to cast doubt upon what the scientific study of evolution is (or is not) in order to attack entire fields of science in favor of their own unsupported explanation of observed phenomena.
The problem these people have is that they refuse to become familar with the one tool that can best be used to argue against specific findings in the field of evolution... Science itself. But at the same time they pretend that the scientific principles and practices that support evolutionary findings are not important, they are engaged in trying to use technology based on those same scientific principles and practices to get their message out. Making them seem at the least, very confused about what they are trying to accomplish. - HumanNouveau, on 01/06/2009, -1/+11Ah, but you are indulging in special pleading. Why do you apply one word to a thing when it occurs in one context and a different word to the same thing when it occurs in a different context? The term magic was applied by Christians to miracles done by other than their God, but that does not change the fact that the alleged acts are the same on both sides. No supernatural act has ever been performed by a magician or by a god.
There is no credible evidence that any miracle ever happened anywhere. - bsmang, on 01/06/2009, -1/+11"it takes far more faith to believe evolution...."
That is why smart, rational people have a tendency to label people like you as morons and loonies. - bsmang, on 01/06/2009, -1/+11I love seeing ***** like this go by on the front page. It brings people out of the woodwork that you could only have imagined to exist otherwise.
- asianswoosh, on 01/06/2009, -0/+9No Misfit you have it the wrong way.We don't consider ourselves better than you,since we don't have a superiority complex that inhibits us from believing that we are derived from lesser beings. Its you who has that compulsion.
- rnewson, on 01/06/2009, -1/+10All these crappy arguments have been answered for a long time, so sad.
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/index.html - ApokalypseNow, on 01/06/2009, -0/+9Tell me, why would an omnipotent being need to rest? If he needs rest, then he's not truly omnipotent.
Evolution is a study that does not desire nor require faith and in fact does not permit it. Such belief is not required because it is indicated, evidenced, it is measurable, testable, and has done so even against the harshest scrutiny. The evidences for it are objective, which means it can easily be verified whether you want to believe in it or not. - Esstee, on 01/06/2009, -1/+10You know I once thought very much the way you do right now...
Man am I ever glad that I chose to stop being a moron and pay better attention to whats around me.
You can deny the evidence all you like, but you can also be assured that as our capacity to study our surroundings continues to grow, at some point your faith will completely fall apart from under you.
It's not discomfort at all that drives the Creationism delusions away from me.
It's the breakdown in logic and reason that it requires of those accepting it.
Of course your are free to believed whatever you choose.
Just don't expect to avert the criticism that follows, when you ask people to put faith in a theory that stands in complete opposition to what's all around us.
It's like I mentioned earlier...
In order to uphold such beliefs, then God would have to be a deceiver.
As he would have(not only) hidden the evidence of a 6 day creation from us, but planted evidence to the contrary to further confuse his creations.
Having said that, I am just glad that Creationists have taken-up their own label, because it would be a terrible thing to bestow these beliefs onto others with faith in a higher power(terrible). - inactive, on 01/06/2009, -4/+13I'm Catholic and I believe in Evolution..
- Modiga, on 01/06/2009, -1/+10I would take dogs as an example of evolution not by natural selection. Dogs are the descendants of wolves who have been bred by Humans for thousands of years to fulfil various roles in our society, whether that's rounding up sheep or just looking small and cute next to owner. In this case survival of the fittest no longer became about surviving in the wilderness long enough to breed, but having the traits the made them fit best with their owners' desires.
- BriSoFli, on 01/06/2009, -0/+9Viruses are not "alive" and provide a pretty convincing bridge between life and non-life:
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/v ...
As far as science proving evolution false... I would be very, very interested to see some sources for that.
Darwin by his own words is proved false? Sources please.
The only schools lying are the one's teaching intelligent design. - Disgod, on 01/06/2009, -1/+9@notasheeple
"Riiiiiiiight. These guys can't decide on if the original cells of life came here on the backs of crystals traveling through space, if aliens made us or if we came from a single mud puddle that was hit by lightning."
Wow, nice to see you can grossly oversimplify the actual science involved with the hypothesis on abiogenesis. I suggest looking into it, it is a hell of a lot more involved than the strawman version you are claiming.
" They can say whatever they want but these evolutionists will not address this issue."
Yeah, won't address the issue, I guess that's why they don't have an entire field of research into the origins of life... oh wait THEY DO. Look up the term "Abiogenesis". They are actively studying how life may have started. I'm not sure, but I think that is what most people would call "Addressing the Issue".
But anyways, how life got started has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution applies once life got started, not before.
"Watch your "pastor" Richard Dawkins get pwned by Ben Stein."
lol, omg, you actually tried using Expelled as evidence.... My side hurts from laughing so hard. Expelled is the biggest pile of ***** film ever. It has absolutely no scientific credibility, and can be shown to lie about everything it claims. It is a pure propaganda piece, nothing more. They make no attempt to present the real science of evolution, and most definitely does not disprove anything about evolution. They even lied to Dawkins about the movie they were making.
www.expelledexposed.com
"I write a book. People can BELIEVE it if they want to."
Perfectly true.
"It's very unlikely that God exists" -not even fully convinced himself.
No, it is called honesty, anybody who claims with absolute certainty there is a god or there isn't is LYING. There is no evidence one way or the other.
"Nobody knows how life started"
"It must have been from the first self replicating organism"
"Far superior highly advanced aliens seeded this planet with an alternate kind of life that they designed themselves." (in short)
"if you look at the detail, of biochemistry and molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of DESIGNER."
Yeah, why don't you find out the full text of the interview and read it. Taking those quotes out of context is called QUOTE MINING. It is blatantly dishonest to remove a few words from all context and then try and claim, because you took them out of context they mean the exact opposite of what the speaker intended.
"Uh oh, someone has some 'splainin to do........ "
Yeah, you do. Why would you blindly accept the blatant dishonesty spouted by Stein? I find it amusing that your login is NotASheeple, but you have managed to prove that you are one. - Kerath, on 01/06/2009, -1/+9Evolution is simply change in species over time. That this happens is not disputable.
Evolution theory doesn't even say that man evolved from ape(-like primate)s, though we did. Just that man evolved. - Mujokan, on 01/06/2009, -1/+9"Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. Between 35% and 40% have agreed with the alternative explanation that humans evolved, but with God guiding the process, while 9% to 14% have chosen a pure secularist evolution perspective that humans evolved with no guidance by God." http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Demo ...
The people who hold the correct belief are greatly in the minority.
Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, but certainly it contradicts parts of most creation myths, and so requires a non-literal interpretation of the texts, which is a good thing.
God doesn't exist, so it is best that belief in Him be as vague and undemanding as possible. That then means that we can do what is best for people as a whole, without worrying about trying to please a non-existent God. The progress of science, insofar as it contradicts the literal word of sacred texts, is helpful in this endeavor. As the religious find themselves compelled by the facts to force God into narrower and narrower gaps in the science, the authority of the texts is weakened. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/06/2009, -1/+9@factattack
"He rested because He wanted us to"
Unevidenced assertion.
"By design we function better that way."
No evidence of design either - you're just anthropomorphizing nature.
"Evolution is not observable."
Incorrect - we have observed it in many place in labs, in the wild, and in the fossil record. We have the recorded evolution of Cit+ E. Coli in labs. We have the discovery of nylon-eating bacteria in the wild, and their subsequent recreation in labs by mimicking the environment they were originally found in. We have the yearly advent of new forms of the common cold and flu strains. We have the perfect and continuous fossil record of the foraminiferas, which consists of over 275,000 distinct fossil and living species today, a day-by-day and year-by-year accounting for almost a complete phylum of life, going back to the mid-Jurassic. We have countless speciation events in college-level fruit fly experiments alone. Your statement here is either completely dishonest or totally ignorant.
"No laws to apply today."
Again, we see it every year with new strains of the common cold and flu. We also see it in the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It has many other applications, and is the foundation of all modern biology.
"No way to use it to benefit."
Incorrect again - a simple example is the pharmaceuticals industry. Biologists and pharmacologists working in that industry use the Theory of Evolution every day in their work developing new antibiotics and drugs. Even if your statement here were true, that says nothing about the veracity of the Theory of Evolution.
"It is a group of theories which are not verifiable..."
Incorrect - the Theory of Evolution simply states that populations adapt to better compete in their environments due to selection pressures acting upon heritable and imperfectly replicating traits. This has been verified by all the examples I have given previously.
"...and must be accepted by faith."
Again, faith is not required because it is indicated, evidenced, it is measurable, testable, and all these evidences are objective so you can verify them whether you want to believe in it or not.
"period."
Claiming "period" is not a logical substitute for substantiating your assertions. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/06/2009, -1/+9@factattack
"yet, I have heard this nutshell version frequently offered by evolutionists themselves."
Your "nutshell" version is oversimplified to the point of uselessness and derision.
"Engineers copy traits of the fish and bird to design stream-lining they study beavers for techniques on building dams. There are so many examples my head is swimming."
How is any of this in any way indicative of ID?
"Which physical characteristics did he [the giraffe] develop first when he needs them all to work simultaneously in order to exist?"
This is just a poor irreducible complexity argument. Darwin answered this in 1868. Your claim assumes that traits must have evolved one at a time. This is not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.
"Genetics. Why are Americans getting bigger? Not fatter. Taller...larger bone structure."
This is the case with humans in general due to simple selection pressures (natural selection, sexual selection, etc). Certain African groups are getting far taller than Americans, and do not benefit from a good diet. Good diet can of course help individuals to achieve the height potential that their genetics allow, but it will not affect the content of their genes.
"hence my rejection of evolution as a theory of origin."
Your ignorance of the evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist. Further, the Theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain origins, but simply the how's and why's of changing life on this planet. - rnewson, on 01/06/2009, -1/+9I was directing you to answers to your arguments. You're wrong on all of them. Why should anyone waste further effort correcting you? Your arguments aren't new.
- TheCatsPants, on 01/06/2009, -0/+8We are not "decended from monkeys". Humans and *apes* are decended from a common ancestor, and there is plenty of evidence for it.
"how does it make you better than them again?"
I know the difference between a monkey and an ape, and also know that I am not decended from my cousins. - idontlikeyou2, on 01/06/2009, -2/+10Because freaking religion right wingers are trying to force religion down everyones throat through discrediting science and it began at evolution. This has nothing to do with atheism but since you brought it up, I'll just assume you're one of the nutters (but not all nutters are intolerant). Funny about proof though, thats a very selective word used by theist.
I don't care what you believe, but I do care about public policy. And when religious group tries to discredit evolution and other scientific theory just to suit their own belief, than they;re hurting future generations and progress of science and society. So this is a battle front created by those nut jobs.
For those so against evolution and science, feel free to stop using medicine and the intertubes. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/06/2009, -0/+8"...and yet you choose to believe that everything in the world came from a single-celled organism in muck!"
Nowhere in science does anyone make such an assertion - this is a gross misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.
"It is far more plausible to see the design and say, 'there's a designer!'"
Human brains are hard-wired for pattern matching. That you claim you are seeing "design" in nature is just anthropomorphizing, applying human traits where they don't really exist.
"It is a proven fact that many creatures get larger after years of genetically passing along the benefits of a healthy diet."
Diet does not, cannot affect genes in that way.
The rest of this post is just a bunch of unevidenced assertions, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - scout29c, on 01/06/2009, -3/+11Creationists are an insult to God. It is as if every living creature was blind and God granted one species the ability to see, and the Creationists refused to open their eyes.
God’s second greatest gift is the ability for humans to learn, know, and understand everything around them, and Creationists deny God’s gift and cling to ignorance as though that were God.
God’s greatest gift is life. The more we learn of the universe, the more unique that becomes. I had hoped that when SETI was turned on, it would be alive with transmissions from other worlds. Alas, that was not the case. So far nothing, except for one WOW several years ago.
Creationists are like those guys who crucified Jesus believing they were doing God’s work. -
Show 51 - 100 of 493 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is