What is Digg?44 Comments
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6The paper you reference is written by so-called "creation scientists", an oxymoron. Further, their work is an exercise in apologetics, and presents no evidence to support the idea of a global flood, merely a model by which it could have happened. Further still, it references the bible in several places, a work known to be historically unreliable. This paper cannot be taken seriously.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html - alkajazz, on 05/21/2008, -1/+6And speaking of the Bible, I guarantee you cannot state one substantiated error in the Bible; all the criticisms have been out there for at least 200 years and all systematically refuted. That in itself is evidence that the Book ought to be taken seriously today.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ - Dimensio, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7I believe that you have phrased your statement awkwardly. Suggesting that "further evidence" for an event of "Noah's flood" is anticipated implies that there already exists evidence for the event, when in fact there does not. Additionally, please explain why you believe that such evidence will be observed, and please describe the nature of the evidence that you believe will be observed.
- ASHPD1, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7science save us, they are going to wake Cthulhu.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4"You should know by now that I'm not talking about any other "branch" of evolution except when a species becomes another one with a higher complexity."
And you should know that there is no distinction.
"So called evidence for that always has to be conjectured whatever the origination theory is."
You're confusing the way science and apologetics work again - science only forms a theory AFTER the examination of the evidence, not before.
"But the nylon-eating bacteria didn't become a higher complexity organism, it's still a bacteria."
Evolution is defined as the adaptation of a population to better fit and compete in an environment due to selection pressures acting upon heritable traits - it does not require "higher complexity", so your argument makes no sense. Put simply, adaptation is evolution.
"It's in every study that claims evolution to a higher complexity. It happens in every single case. Just look at one, I guarantee it and I think you know it."
I said name it and be specific - I didn't say wave your hand at it and say "it's there, go look for it". That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
"Supply just one such non-conjectured peer reviewed published scientific study of what I specify above."
Seeing as how you are using a variable definition of the word "conjecture", any examples that I provide would be dismissed by you as you move the goalpost.
"You apparently are not able to recognize figure of speech because bias blinds your eyes blah blah blah"
This claim is nothing more than an excuse that design theorists use to try to explain away their own failure to make their case. When someone proposes a new scientific theory, it is that person's responsibility to make a case for it. Scientific theories have, in the past, achieved wide acceptance despite strong cultural and scientific resistance. (Evolution itself is an example.) If there is substance to ID theory, its proponents must make it clear.
To all appearances, design theorists have blinded themselves to seeing flaws in their theories. Their religious motivation is obvious. Just as important, they do not follow the usual scientific procedure of testing their ideas.
A scientific theory is tested by subjecting it to a very real chance of falsification. Scientists make specific predictions based on the theory, look to see if the predictions pan out, and consider the theory false if the results cannot fit what was expected. Intelligent design theorists, unlike evolutionary scientists, do not put their ideas to such risks. Apparently, they do not want their ideas at risk.
"too much personal bias like you have."
And you lack such bias? This is exactly why, as I stated, that your mythological novel cannot be taken as inerrant: it is open to interpretation. To claim your interpretation of it is the correct one is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.
"You got it beautifully, the Lord inspired the Council of Nicea in AD 325 to reject what He didn't want and include what He did want."
Evidence for this assertion? - AlwaysAwake, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6Particularly of interest is the information about changes in the earth's magnetic field in the past. Such changes could be catastrophic to many life forms, and certainly humans.
- camptownjr, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5Cant wait to see the results of this expedition.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4"Creation scientist is so much more superior to man-made theory scientists as much as the Creator is superior to man."
In light of the fact that there is no objective, empirical evidence for a creator, your statement here is rather comical - it instead reads the opposite of how you intended it. Further, you have referenced no evidence for your assertion.
"Truly the evidence to support evolution is no less apologetic than creationism."
This is a poor understanding of science. Science picks evidence FIRST, then draws conclusions only after examination of that evidence. Apologetics starts with the conclusion, presumed true without reason, and cherry-picks evidence to support it from the larger body of evidence that, as a whole, contradicts their position and their predetermined conclusion.
"...the conclusions to support evolution theory from the research and data in study after study are still nothing more than more opinionizing."
This is another misunderstanding of the scientific process. The evidence exists regardless of our opinions, not because of them. You're still thinking backwards.
"And speaking of the Bible, I guarantee you cannot state one substantiated error in the Bible; all the criticisms have been out there for at least 200 years and all systematically refuted. That in itself is evidence that the Book ought to be taken seriously today."
Your bible makes references to a global flood - the link I provided earlier directly contradicts that claim.
Mathew 13:31-32: "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."
Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. (The epiphytic orchids have the smallest seeds.) And since there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into trees large enough to support bird nests.
Mark 13:24-25: "In those days ... the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall." Of course this is nonsense. The billions of stars will never fall to earth and the moon does not produce its own light.
Luke 23:44 "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour." How strange that there is no record of such an event anywhere except in the pages of this book... of FICTION.
If you need more, check http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long ... - ApokalypseNow, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4"And in order to bring the evidence to any conclusion in favor of evolution, the scientist always has to conjecture and they always do."
Conjecture implies a lack of evidence, and the term as used by you ignores the preponderance of evidence already in favor of the Theory of Evolution. This also ignores the observable, and indeed repeatable (see nylon-eating bacteria), FACT that evolution happened, and continues to happen. Name your conjecture, and be specific.
"There is always another explanation of the data that is consistent with the flood or creation - every time, all the time."
...and every one of these relies on supernatural, unevidenced *****, and should be treated as such.
"Don't tell me that their views are not cherry picking"
If it was, the peer review process would have found it long ago - scientists are always out to make a name for themselves by disproving old theories and coming up with better ones. If a scientist could do that, it would seriously alter the field of biology and make his name for life. Let me spell it out for you - IGNORING UNEVIDENCED SUPERNATURAL ***** IS NOT "CHERRY PICKING".
"he wasn't teaching biology"
He said in no uncertain terms that it was the smallest seed, and that it grew into a tree. Both claims are false. Whether or not he was teaching biology, whether or not he was just keeping with things they could understand, he was lying.
Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one's interpretation of it. Some people believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome because the Bible says so and the Bible is inerrant (Schadewald, 1987). Most people, including most biblical inerrantists, would say they are wrong. Claiming inerrancy for a particular view of creation or the flood is no different in principle. Claiming that the Flood account is a true literal account is an error if it was written as an allegory; claiming that it is a true allegory is an error if it was a literal account. To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.
Further, the bible as it is read today was compiled at the Council of Nicea in AD 325, long after all the component texts were written. Many portions that were previously accepted were removed, and many portions that were not previously accepted were added. Is the Bible supposed to be inerrant before or after this occurred?
Also, the Bible cannot be an authority to its own authoritativeness; that would be circular reasoning. - inactive, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2there are too many family guy fans and not enough southpark fans on this website.
- alkajazz, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3And please do not try the "Blah blah it wasn't translated right blah blah blah" because you would think God with all his power and glory could guide the hands of translators.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1 Maybe they can clear up the abiotic oil theory.
- WonderBoy55, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3I bet it's made of candy :)
- Genetico, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1What are some of the possible effects of such a change occurring?
- SpectralSounds, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Water tentacle.
- yujie, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1They found Adam?
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Pic or it didn't happen! just kidding, you couldn't pay me to look at that pic... there are some Obama lovers here on digg that might be down with that though...
- leerayIG88, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Be for warned...Beware of the Mole People.
- robbymcdobby, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4Hope they don't find any aliens.
- zspitfire04, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Pshh I'm not sure if they're going to want to see most of that crust, just ask my ex-wife.
- DeepFriedFetus, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2OMG CLOVRFEILD!!!!1
- FuzzDarkness, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0Isn't that where they dropped Megatron and friends in the Transformers movie?
- DickMasterson2, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0Awesom!
- dawnmathews, on 05/24/2008, -0/+0Good they can use robots and not endanger themselves!
- alkajazz, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1God damn this comment system.
- ThePwnyExpress, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2maybe soon we'll know more about the ocean than we do about space...
- chuckDontSurf, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1Mmmm... crust...
- Jhiaxuz, on 05/14/2008, -4/+3They will go to extreme lengths to find Osama Bin Laden these days.
- rikkizenith, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1Apparently, some people think aliens have underwater bases deep in the trenches outside of our reach. Maybe so, considering these areas are gigantic pitch black areas and all we have is tiny subs with a small amount of light covering a minuscule area.
- snotrokit, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2Just don't accidentally crack something open and send a huge monster with killer parasitic crab like things loose in NYC. I have a hunch that something really really bad would happen.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1didnt The Core teach scientists anything? other than a great way to fall asleep and develop a drinking problem
- onionbagel724, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2exploring secrets from deep below involving crust turns me on
- pinkcherry, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1Slusho?.....Seabed‘s Nectar, great Cloverfield here we come
- pixelpimp, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1They will find Human Trash from the last 60 years!
- kenrayd, on 05/23/2008, -3/+1You should know by now that I'm not talking about any other "branch" of evolution except when a species becomes another one with a higher complexity.
So called evidence for that always has to be conjectured whatever the origination theory is.
But the nylon-eating bacteria didn't become a higher complexity organism, it's still a bacteria. The ability to adapt has nothing to do with origin of species, because adaptability was already designed into organisms so that all organisms that have observable changes are always still the same organism, no higher complexity.
"Name your conjecture, and be specific."
It's in every study that claims evolution to a higher complexity. It happens in every single case. Just look at one, I guarantee it and I think you know it.
Supply just one such non-conjectured peer reviewed published scientific study of what I specify above. Don't worry, Dimensio couldn't do it either.
You apparently are not able to recognize figure of speech because bias blinds your eyes to the objectives of Jesus, not a plant identifier, but the Savior of humans from a life of sin, like you have. You mean to say that Jesus was not allowed to use hyperbole in teaching morals? Sir I need not take you seriously. You just illustrated the reason there are so many useless interpretations of Scripture - too much personal bias like you have.
You got it beautifully, the Lord inspired the Council of Nicea in AD 325 to reject what He didn't want and include what He did want. - kenrayd, on 05/15/2008, -5/+3Further evidence of Noah's global flood is anticipated.
- kenrayd, on 05/22/2008, -4/+1And in order to bring the evidence to any conclusion in favor of evolution, the scientist always has to conjecture and they always do. Just read one study after another and look for yourself. "It appears the data in consistent with...", "It seems the data is consistent with..." There is always another explanation of the data that is consistent with the flood or creation - every time, all the time. Don't tell me that their views are not cherry picking - if your honest, you know they are.
And all of the points any of you can bring up against the Bible are out of context, exaggeration, inaccurate, misconstruing, or outright false every time and all the time.
For example, when Jesus taught of the mustard seed, he wasn't teaching biology. He was teaching character object lessons from examples that the people were familiar with. I'm sure they had no idea what your orchid seed was. You're out of context and you lose.
Again, on the falling stars, he was speaking what the people understood. It wasn't his job to explain the difference between stars and meteors. By the way you should look into history on the date Nov. 13, 1833. There's your falling "stars" and it happened shortly after the great dark day in 1798. You're out of context and you lose.
There is historical evidence of a dark day about that time from S. America etc. You can do the research if you care. - retinalfetish, on 05/14/2008, -4/+1I heard that there's cheese inside!
- diggdean, on 05/14/2008, -4/+1First the LHC, now they're going to collapse the Earth. :P
- kenrayd, on 05/15/2008, -4/+1Enjoy...
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_pla ... - kenrayd, on 05/21/2008, -5/+1Creation scientist is so much more superior to man-made theory scientists as much as the Creator is superior to man.
Truly the evidence to support evolution is no less apologetic than creationism. The only thing lacking is the quantity of research, but the conclusions to support evolution theory from the research and data in study after study are still nothing more than more opinionizing.
And speaking of the Bible, I guarantee you cannot state one substantiated error in the Bible; all the criticisms have been out there for at least 200 years and all systematically refuted. That in itself is evidence that the Book ought to be taken seriously today. - inactive, on 05/14/2008, -9/+3You think THAT'S bad?! Remember the time scientists tried to unlock the secrets of my ass crust?
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is