What is Digg?87 Comments
- Linguo, on 09/26/2008, -0/+33One of my earliest memories is being chased by an angry goose in a lakeside park. I had to climb on top of a trashcan to avoid being bitten.
Thank you for making this nightmare like 18 times worse. - SisyphusFragmnt, on 09/26/2008, -0/+23What.. a transitional fossil?!
- 4NDr01D, on 09/26/2008, -0/+21nearby was a saddle and caveman riding harness
- ifire, on 09/26/2008, -1/+19No silly... its just God testing your faith.
- fuckingusername, on 09/26/2008, -0/+12note to self : bring camera when looking for fossils
- Derelict267, on 09/26/2008, -2/+12Obviously put there to test our faith...r-right guys?
- nitsuj, on 09/27/2008, -0/+7"Remember he only needed to carry parent species of each animal."
If you'd actually read the bible you'd know that it claims that seven of some species was supposedly brought aboard - which compounds the problem even more.
"Of those animals that were too big... the simple solution is to bring babies."
This is just madness.
Consider a modern day zoo and how many people and how much resource it takes to run it. How much round-the-clock effort it takes to nurture baby animals. Times that by a few million and give it over to a handful of humans? I think not.
Also, how were the animals rounded up by a few people from all of their natural habitats?
More, the supposed flood would have annihilated all of the animals natural habitats and food sources. Supposing that these animals could somehow be redistributed geographically (they couldn't) they would perish quickly due to lack of food source and destruction of food chains.
"It would have been very feasible to bring all the animals AND food on the arc.... but maybe iff you bury this comment that wont be true."
No, really it isn't feasible. It just isn't. There's no geological evidence for it, it violates almost everything we know about biology and it's a resource/technological impossibility.
Believing it in this day and age in light of easy to find information is bordering on delusional mental illness. - noumuon, on 09/27/2008, -0/+7wow, kelly's entire argument is "i don't have to give an argument for my claims."
- protodon, on 09/27/2008, -0/+7Why was the past so awesome?
- SkinnerBox, on 09/27/2008, -1/+8How did the Koala get there, eat eucalyptus, and then get back to Australia without leaving any relatives in the middle east? For that matter, how did ANY regional species (read: almost all species) do this?
How did freshwater and saltwater fish both survive in a single body of water?
Then lets say that you're correct and they got all these parent species onto the ark. How did they evolve so quickly into all of the variety of life we see today? That requires supercharged evolution, and if you're going to evoke that, you might as well just accept the tree of life.
The flood is a giant crock and anyone with an once of intellectual integrity will admit it. - Defiant001, on 09/27/2008, -0/+7You are copying and pasting, with no references to reality. Your clinging to some faulty assumption that carbon dating is completely wrong when it can only be a few years off at most. Even if carbon dating is thousands of years off it still shows fossils and rocks as WAY older then 6000 years, come on now we have been over this did you even read the other comments?
You need to let go of your generated evidence and accept that your believing in a lie. - Defiant001, on 09/27/2008, -1/+7"it's almost painful watching you fail."
What makes it worse is that he is "writing a book on the subject." What a waste of printers time and trees... - ixid, on 09/27/2008, -1/+7"The evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12."
It's almost painful watching you fail. Isotopes are chemically identical, it is easy to demonstrate that organisms treat c-12 and c-14 identically.
"Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago!"
Link and not from a dodgy creationist site that just asserts it with no evidence. - mediablitz, on 09/27/2008, -1/+7Are you suggesting they are 49 million, 995 thousand years off? Are you claiming rates vary that much? Do you have any evidence to prove sedimentary layering, and carbon dating are less than 1 tenth of 1% accurate?
Lets say they are off by 95%. That still makes the bones 600,000 years old. Do you see the illogical bent of your argument? - sdellboy, on 09/27/2008, -0/+6I, for one, welcome our giant toothy goose overlords...
- ixid, on 09/27/2008, -0/+6So why does fossil diatom evidence show different periods of salinity in the layers?
- ErickStevenson, on 09/27/2008, -0/+6LOL... why are you guys even arguing with this moron kelly? Everything you tell her/him just goes in one ear and out the other. These anti-evolution have it set that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Fact don't matter to these people, just reading this persons comments make me sick and sad that people in this day and age still believe that it's better we go back to the Dark Ages....
- SisyphusFragmnt, on 09/27/2008, -0/+6lawl
- mediablitz, on 09/27/2008, -2/+7The ark just keeps getting more and more crowded. How big is that boat Noah supposedly built now? I am guessing about the size of Rhode Island...
- Wawin, on 09/27/2008, -0/+5dude that happened to me when i was little too, geese are crazy
- ixid, on 09/27/2008, -0/+5The bivalve Mytilus edulis (mussels) grow their shell at different rates depending on the salinity of the water they live in. This is preserved in fossils and shows different levels of salinity over long periods of time. This isn't possible over a great flood no matter what salinity you claim the ocean has, the duration is too short and the salinity would need to vary back and forth many times, too fast for 'micro-evolution' t adapt. Did god make these to test our faith?
This fossil evidence for salinity also matches that for the diatoms. - Magnus150, on 09/27/2008, -0/+4@alexander
"From a demonstrating evolution point of view"
No *****? - Wawin, on 09/27/2008, -1/+5too funny! he takes himself seriously!
Just read the link I gave you. This guy reminds me of the kirk cameron video where he holded a banana and claimed it was the "atheists nightmare". lol
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html - Defiant001, on 09/27/2008, -1/+5http://digg.com/general_sciences/Evidence_of_Evolu ...
We already proved you wrong in your other comments on other dugg articles... Are you seriously copying and pasting this *****? - Wawin, on 09/27/2008, -2/+6*waits for the "enlightened" anti-evolution fundamentalists comments*
- leerayIG88, on 09/26/2008, -0/+4:-E
- mediablitz, on 09/27/2008, -2/+6Ok, parent species of each animal. There are millions of species (since no evolution was possible, right?). How did he build an ark that held millions of species, including a T-Rex, elephants, brontosaurus, and on and on and on?
Really now, how big would that ark be? Be honest now...
That would be an interesting article. Someone should be able to easily estimate how large the ark would have to be, to hole two parent species of each animal. I am sticking with Rhode Island...
Can you show me the feasibility study? - ixid, on 09/27/2008, -1/+5""How did freshwater and saltwater fish both survive in a single body of water?"
There wouldn't have been a difference then."
Untrue. According to the creationist ***** fossil sediments were laid down during the great flood, therefore there must have been both types as these are seen in the fossil record. You still need to make up an answer for this point or find some new explanation for the sediments and fossilization.
So try again. - Wawin, on 09/27/2008, -1/+5this is just too funny!
My friend, you don´t even have to get into the biological themes to debunk the story of noah. Just think of the following, in the time of noah, the technology DID NOT EXIST to build a boat as big as it would be necesary.
What about the giant room for poo? Or did they all poo among themselves for 40 days. I don´t know about you, but 6000 years isn´t enough for a tyranosaurus to evolve into a chicken. If that were true we would see wildy violent evolution happening daily, evolution is slow.
Let´s not even consider the giant pile of data that shows the amazing amount of animals that existed more than 6000 years ago. I´ll just stop now, just read this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html - nitsuj, on 09/27/2008, -1/+4"In other words, the rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks."
This is a Hovind flavored creationist fallacy. A multitude of dating methods are used including calibrated isotopic dating.
Hope your book addresses the following link information: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
with peer-reviewed references right? - ixid, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3From a demonstrating evolution point of view - even better. It's not a transitional fossil, it's a group of birds that developed beaks instead of teeth and then developed pseudo-teeth made from their beaks because their new niche needed functional teeth again.
- scabbers, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3Cabon-14 dates are calibrated. It brings the accuracy up.
- inactive, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3Ooh, an advertising firm is going after clients?
- EmailAddress, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2check out their toofs... teefs... toofis-i
- Derelict267, on 09/27/2008, -3/+5Why didn't "he" just pick em all up into the clouds, or you know, stop the flood...? What makes you think your god has a gender? Ah, who am I kidding? You can't even spell let alone critically think or reason.
- Reziarfg, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2/golfclap
- hartley, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Pics of the goose, surprisingly without any teeth. (FTA)
http://tinyurl.com/4zogzp - MixMastaKooz, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Would an Ark matter to birds that could float?
- celerityfm, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2http://www.realanimalfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ?
- AmazingSteve, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2They found McCain's skull? Does that mean no debate tonight?
- AndrewDB, on 09/27/2008, -2/+4http://tinyurl.com/3slgod
Artistic rendering of the said goose. - nitsuj, on 09/27/2008, -1/+3""Do you have any evidence to prove sedimentary layering, and carbon dating are less than 1 tenth of 1% accurate?"
Quite a bit of it actually."
They why didn't you present it here? It would have been trivial to do so. Instead we get this private email crap.
Post your evidence you coward. - Gir53457, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Further scientific proof geese are ***** evil.
- OHSfan727, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2duck bones
duck bones
duck bones
GOOSE BONES - Wawin, on 09/27/2008, -1/+3eddie izzard did a standup around that, quite funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFdmG-TRxzE - wilsondus, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Can you imagine that thing flying over and dropping a load on your shoulder? LOL.... eeeeeww!
- jaymzdean, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Capture the DNA, clone the thing and let's see if it can lay a golden egg, since the governments killing the one we have now.
- Mockylock, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1DEATH AWAITS YOU ALL WITH.. BIG... SHARP... POINTY TEETH!!
- cheezintern, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1Imagine the amount of crap that thing could leave on your lawn
- pitdog, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1Goose with teeth?? What's next - politicians with morals?
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 