What is Digg?118 Comments
- laceym, on 04/18/2008, -2/+135There is also a late-breaking new development in the controversy, a new theory called Avian Transportation Theory.
Unlike the original Stork Theory, the modern, sophisticated "Avian Transportation Theory" (ATT) merely points out that there are gaps in the orthodox Sex Theory, and that current sonogram imaging is unreliable. Moreover ATT does not specify that babies are necessarily brought by storks but by "large birds unspecified" (although many individual ATT theorists PRIVATELY believe it is a stork). - KidVicious, on 04/18/2008, -2/+78"As a sex maniac, I'm pretty hostile to the rival stork theory." -Richard Dawkins
Hilarious. - whyoung, on 04/18/2008, -2/+76"Tempt not the wrath of Big Bird least ye be condemned to an eternity of feathers and gizzard stones." 1 Tweety 4:20
- inactive, on 04/18/2008, -1/+68FACT: babies are bigger than vaginas.
Take that sexual intercoursists. - inactive, on 04/18/2008, -0/+54I don't see how the stork theory is incompatible with science. LET ME BELIEVE!
- akkibaba, on 04/18/2008, -4/+56Stop oppressing us with your "science" and "evidence".
I demand that stork theory be given equal time in classrooms, because we don't know everything that is to be known about childbirth. After all, no Digg user has seen the act of reproduction, ever. - dontaskagain, on 04/18/2008, -3/+50This is so stupid, everyone knows babies are re-incarnated monkeys that did a good job.
- beloitpiper, on 04/18/2008, -3/+45FINALLY the people will hear what the mainstream media has been suppressing for too long! If their "sexual reproduction" theory is so solid, why can't we just present the Stork Theory (ST, for short) and argue it?
- ZBox, on 04/18/2008, -1/+41Teach the stork controversy IMHO.
- Hetman, on 04/18/2008, -2/+38I thihk we should teach both in schools and let the kids decide. It is only fair.
- nevpayne, on 04/18/2008, -1/+33And I will lay (eggs) down upon those with great omelette's and with furious poaches those who attempt to pluck and behead my road-islands!
Beakiziel 5:17 - Harabeck, on 04/18/2008, -7/+36It's just as viable as ID. Great video.
- arcanistherogue, on 04/18/2008, -3/+26Goddamn Dawkins is daft.
The stork was obviously delivered by another stork. - tieInterceptor, on 04/18/2008, -3/+26stork theory is true! big science is afraid to teach the controversy! we are being oppressed!!!!
at least I KNOW that they will all regret this heresy when the flying spaghetti monster sends them all to hell! - bbardlbradd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+20Richard Dawkins indoors with glasses and wine, proclaiming that he is both hostile to an idea, and a self proclaimed sex maniac. He is /the/ scientific badass of the 21th century.
- skidooer, on 04/18/2008, -2/+22The "sexual reproduction" advocates are afraid of being labeled discriminatory toward the Stork Theory advocates, a phenomenon known as catching Stork Theory Discrimination (STD, for short).
- zeebo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+18Even the most intelligent people can fall into the trap of putting ideology before reality.
- inactive, on 04/18/2008, -0/+18You're not being discriminated against. You are just excluded from intelligent conversations for your complete lack of logic. We don't have to pretend that your silly little ideas that you can't even defend are somehow meaningful and we certainly don't owe you any kind of respect for believing in idiotic things. So if you can't defend your ideas, shut the ***** up. Either you have arguments or you don't, but don't come to us and ***** wine about how you're being discriminated against because your "God" didn't give you the intelligence to recognize the logical from the absurd.
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/18/2008, -2/+20"Sure guys, an invisible force is pulling you down, and pulling everything towards each other." True statement, testable, repeatable.
"It's a giant ***** invisible panda that pulls us all down to the ground. All hail the Giant Gravity Panda!" Speculation, untestable.
The Scientific Method is great for sorting through the *****... - sk11, on 04/18/2008, -2/+19why are the scientists (or whorologists) soooo afraid of ATT? why do thwy hate ATT soo much? their are lots of holes in the THEORY of whorology. womans holes are obviously not big enough for babies to come out from. the reason women get fat is cus they eat too mch fat foods when they worry about the stork coming or not. teaching kids about whorology just leads to more aids. this is why society is getting so wrong.
- Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -3/+19I don't see why the scientific community is so scared of a little skeptical inquiry into their cherished theory of Reproductionism. Frankly, I think the idea that we humans are merely the godless results of a bunch of dirty sex liquids mixing inside a woman's vagina to be offensive. It's fairly obvious that the theory of Reproductionism has led to one of the deadliest activities we've ever carried out, Abortion.
Now I'm not saying that godless Reproductionism leads to abortion but, never mind that's actually exactly what I'm saying.
If these scientists are so sure of themselves why don't they just let us talk, then they can blow us out of the water and call us fools! - Schrodinger2, on 04/18/2008, -3/+19Gravity can have strong mathematical and observational evidence provided for it. What a ridiculous analogy.
- evilcaptain, on 04/18/2008, -4/+18It's funny cause it's true!
- inactive, on 04/18/2008, -0/+14This isn't about your freedom to believe in stupid nonsense. That was not, and is not, at stake. You can be as idiotic as you want to be. The problem is that you're pushing it on us.
- Hetman, on 04/18/2008, -0/+13Im not talking about ID. Im talking about the difference between the reproduconists vs the Stork Theory, or STS theory as it is refer to as. Teach both!!!!
- IHaveIssues, on 04/18/2008, -2/+12There is a big difference between attacking something and laughing hysterically at it.
- dagnome1984, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9But that is based on the possible false assumption that Ben is intelligent.
- Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -0/+9You don't get satire do you? I'm merely portraying human reproduction as accurately as evolution is portrayed in creationist propaganda.
- blackturtleus, on 04/18/2008, -4/+12I'm still wondering about Stein's actual intentions for making Expelled. Is it supposed to be a double Colbert kind of thing where he pretends to advocate one position, but is actually advocating the opposite by showing how ridiculous the first position is? Or is it even more complicated than that? He seems bright enough to understand that ID is not science and so it would seem that he is either cynically trying to get rich by appealing to ID enthusiasts or he is actually making fun of them in a manner that they will never be able to figure out. This whole thing is somewhat perplexing at so many levels.
- bobartig, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9I'm rather impressed that Richard Dawkins either 1) At some point used the phrase 'Stork Theory', or 2) Recorded a few scenes for this vid.
- ThunderLeg, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9"Scientific badass." Now there's a phrase that should be used more often.
- Fartbandit, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9To explain my above comment that seems to be in the process of being buried... the "Avian Transportation Theory" (ATT) comment above is merely a cut and paste from richarddawkins.net. Still a brilliant and more than relevant comment that parodies I.D. perfectly which is why i dugg the comment up... :)
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2478,Sexpelled-N ... - Myztry, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9Which came first. The stork or the egg...
- insllvn, on 04/19/2008, -0/+7Jesus. Jesus came first.
Of course, that is just what Mary Magdalen said... - ScienceDoc, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8Always remember: "You never want to confuse a good story with facts". And, "In circular reasoning, there are no loose ends".
- inactive, on 04/18/2008, -2/+8Jebus, Ben Stein has really embarrassed himself. Lightning hitting a puddle! /rolleyes
- Fordi, on 04/19/2008, -3/+9Dude, it's all well and good what you choose to believe on your own time. Still, don't think scientists are being 'closed minded' when they shoo you off; the question was asked already - and refuted, properly.
"What if it could be shown that a designer was necessary for life to become as complex and varied as it is?" The idea was posited, and evaluated. The original math was done*, and showed a possibility - but was later found to be a flawed test. The math was redone**, and showed that a designer wasn't necessary.
So yeah, not closed minded. Dead argument. Moving along, nice weather out lately, yeah? I think I'll go for a walk.
* The original math was this:
(a) Given the information found in the common 90% of the genome shared by all living critters, the chances of getting one that works is nigh astronomical.
Other pseudo maths include:
(b) 'Irreducable Complexity', the idea that if you take a single part away from a working organic machine, it is no longer useful to the organism (what good is half an eye?);
(c) informational loss due to natural selection;
(d) thermodynamic violation (that a more complex thing cannot come from a less complex thing);
(e) the fine-tuned universe (the idea that, were any of the universal constants significantly different, life could not have arisen)
(f) Specified complexity (that things that are both specified (containing of useful information) and complex (containing of large amounts of information) must have been designed)
**
(a) The original statistical model failed to take into account basic genetic theory, that is, it was a 'roll of the dice' model. The appropriate model to use is the 'black box' model, which uses a pattern of variance via mutation and other means, and pareing via natural selection. With a dice model, a survivable result comes in O(n) time, n being the total number of possible combinations for a genome. With the black box model, it becomes O(log(n)), which fits very well into the approximately known timeline for abiogenesis.
(b) There has been shown no viable example of irreducable complexity. Testability is based on an inability to show a possible mutation path that gains an advantage at every step. It doesn't matter if we really know the path for certain; if a possible one can even be hypothesized, the system is not irreducably complex (a defocused eye is more of an advantage than no eye).
(c) It is true that natural selection necessarily loses information, however, there is information added in the multiple forms of mutation (genetic interference, transcription errors, and the like), which is then /filtered/ by selection. The result is that new information is added to the genome each generation, then brought down only to what is useful in the survival of the genetic host.
(d) Thermodynamic law #2 states that in a closed system, entropy must increase (data loss occurs constantly). Energy input is needed to maintain or increase information in a system. Conveniently enough, we've got this huge ball of fire raining radiant energy down on us continuously - thus, the Earth is not a closed system, and thus, locally speaking, doesn't have to obey law #2 except where we create a closed system within it (it should be noted that there is no such thing as a truly closed system).
(e) This argument comes, primarily, from a lack of imagination. If the universal constants were different, and self-replicating entities formed, life would simply be adapted to those universal constants, rather than our own.
(f) There are many instances of specified complexity in the natural world that are observably not designed, but generated by the interaction of natural forces. Meanwhile, requirement of a designer only shifts the question of creation to the designer: who made him? - kaelyiesta, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7Once a scientific journal has peer reviewed a submission on Stork theory, and has accepted the evidence presented and hypothesis has turned to theory then I'll agree that it should be taught in publicly funded schools. Meanwhile, there has not been one peer reviewed research paper on the subject. It's just a bunch of supposed scientists wishful thinking. Consensus does not mean evidence. Say whatever you believe all you want, but until there is some evidence on the subject it should remain just that: a belief. This is what the scientific method is all about. Speaking your mind is one thing, but until there is evidence for what you claim, and has been thoroughly reviewed it should not be considered for public schools. Keep stork theory in mythology and out of science until the scientific method has validated it.
And this goes for all the other variants of these supposed 'theories' as well, ST, ATT and the even crazier Pelican Theory. - insllvn, on 04/19/2008, -0/+6Ben Stein is very well educated. He is well read, and knowledgeable on a great degree of subjects. This does not make him intelligent. There is a distinction between knowledge and intelligence. You may be right, Ben Stein may simply be a stupid man with a good education.
- takamalak, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6... your comment was.
- carpespasm, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5Way to make a strawman. Asking where the stork came from is a false question. The stork doesn't need to be delivered because it has always existed.
- nullifidian0, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5Remember, having a vagina is a *SIN*.
- Logicexe, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5The Stork works in mysterious ways.
- beloitpiper, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4I don't have to. My book of Mother Goose tells me that the stork brings babies. That book is Truth, and if you say it's fake, you're a religious bigot.
- Matri, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4Don't take this the wrong way fuzionmuse, but we do agree with you. It's just that you're spoiling the mojo of the moment here.
- Fordi, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4It's been shown in scientific studies that vaginal openings can distend. Stupid storkist. Haven't you even ever *seen* a vagina??
- chipsngravy, on 04/19/2008, -1/+5suck it up.
- nullifidian0, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3***** yeah.
- sgtpppr, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3You can't claim 'discrimination' because people debate you and you don't want to. You always have the right to believe whatever you want, but don't claim people are discriminating or oppressing you because they don't agree and call you out on your flawed logic. Your only real defense is to say you don't use logic or rational thinking at all and thus cannot debate on their terms. At least then you're being open and honest and the other person can just move on.
- ClevelandBrown, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3yes, much like Ben Stein's movie.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is