What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
69 Comments
- serif69, on 11/04/2009, -0/+25So you're saying we could create new mountains to combat global warming? That rocks.
- uptwolait, on 11/04/2009, -0/+14So let's just pave all of our streets and sidewalks with basalt. That'll soak up our carbon footprints.
- Fejerro, on 11/04/2009, -0/+12That's pretty cool. Reminds me of the oxygen catastrophe of 2.5 billion years ago.
http://www.damninteresting.com/how-bacteria-nearly ... - DankBuddz, on 11/04/2009, -3/+14Nobody on earth has ever said that, good try though.
- JasonCox, on 11/04/2009, -3/+11So now we're blaming the mountains, are we? Aw what the hell, I'm in. ***** mountains!
- askantik, on 11/04/2009, -2/+9Perhaps you forgot the /s?
- badenglishihave, on 11/04/2009, -3/+9Governor Mark Sanford had his marriage turn *ice cold* when he said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail and was actually cheating on his wife.
- seltaeb4, on 11/04/2009, -2/+7Literally.
- publiclurker, on 11/04/2009, -2/+7No, I believe he thinks we are dumb enough to actually believe him.
- EoNhausen, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5What a dick move mountains.
- pinchduck, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4There is a lot of ***** involved.
- SisyphusFragmnt, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5"Evolution"
- badenglishihave, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4No thanks, I'd like to maintain my dignity.
- MikeFromAmerica, on 11/04/2009, -2/+5Awesome comment. You should work for CNN or Fox News.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3The difference between a rising mountain range and a virus -- is likely the mountain range is an anomaly. Any predation and slight change in weather, is just part of the randomness that nature has adapted to.
Small cooling periods don't cause mass extinctions but extreme ones do. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Rare events and more extreme events force extinctions. - DankBuddz, on 11/04/2009, -2/+5"That's because high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide would have produced acid rain rich in CO2; as the rain hit the mountain, the CO2 would have combined with calcium in the volcanic basalt, forming calcium carbonate--i.e., limestone--runoff. "
Come on, usually there's a few douchebags who bring up the fact that Acid Rain doesn't exist... where you guys at? - seltaeb4, on 11/04/2009, -3/+6I thought the rise of the Appalachians caused a lot of trouble for Jon Voight and his canoeing buddies.
- uptwolait, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Hokay!
- twinklyJesus, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4That was the rise of a lake.
- carbonetc, on 11/04/2009, -3/+6Unsurprisingly, you're completely blind to how huge a problem this is for creationists. We've been losing species for hundreds of millions of years. We're in the midst of the Earth's SIXTH mass extinction. A created ecosystem would have had to start out with a LOT of species for us to be left with so many at the present moment. In the creationist reality, your distant descendants will have cows, chickens, rats, cockroaches, and pigeons as company, and not much else. You should be even more concerned about mass extinction than those of us who are scientifically literate.
But then you probably don't believe in all that "millions of years" stuff anyway. - SisyphusFragmnt, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Apparently it works better without the thumbs since European women are hygienic failures.
- damnshoes, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4this proves Sub-Zero from Mortal Kombat is one of the best.
- Ferretman, on 11/05/2009, -2/+4Fascinating article!
Amazing info that shows we don't know nearly as much about how CO2 works as some think we do.
There's a ton that scientists don't know yet. *Real* scientists admit it--figuring stuff out is what it's all about. - archiesteel, on 11/04/2009, -3/+5Thanks, we were wondering when you and the other crazies would show up.
- Propethic, on 11/04/2009, -3/+5Sure, because an event is likely to destroy 100% living life on the planet every so often and everything starts over
- gavroche, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4These mountains stops right at the Canadian border. Because they forgot their passports.
- rocknog, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4Throughout the whole history of the Earth's existence, living organisms have played a major role in shaping the Earth's climate. I do agree that adaptation may be a more viable option than trying to control the climate, but aside from that, I think it's pure foolishness to believe that our actions don't have consequences.
- sanman, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2I'll tell the Norwegians to get right on it.
Nominate Slaartibartfaast for a Nobel Peace Prize for making any mountains that cool the Earth. - SisyphusFragmnt, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Well at least our women shave their armpits and legs.
/s - Fleagleman, on 11/04/2009, -2/+4 I can't hear you over that loud banjo playing.
- RabidCapitalist, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Junk science, through and through. This needs to be placed in the "fiction" section of the library. It's amazing what crap the masses will swallow from the lips of snake-oil salesmen posing as tenured scientists. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest this is anything more than the product of an overactive imagination.
Isn't it more reasonable to assume these geological features formed very quickly as a result of global catastrophe (Noah's Flood, perhaps?) The physics of such an event fit a lot better with the geologic record than slow formation over millions of years. - Unikraken, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1You've been given countless amounts of evolutionary data over the years here on Digg. By now you should be an expert. You're either a troll, a poorly disguised Poe, or actually a crazed leper. Either way, it's no use to actually waste time trying to explain all of this to you.
Damnit, you made me waste this must time already.
"Good" trolling: 4/10 - Krakerjax, on 11/04/2009, -5/+6I need a grip? Champ, I have one. It's rather strong too.
I never said people were dying, I said that we'll eventually screw ourselves by polluting our environment with gasses we can't handle, just like the bacteria in Fejerros posted article :) - carbonetc, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2"First thing I'm thinking is that evidence doesn't go "against". Every evidence is an evidence *for*."
Whatever semantics you choose to adopt, evidence *for* the Earth being round also constitutes evidence *against* the claim that the Earth is flat. The relationship between geological evidence and the flood claim is quite similar.
"Second, I'm glad you understand that *anything* can be "proven" from cherry-picked evidence because that's exactly what Neverlution is. There are plenty of perspectives, alternate explanations and flat-out, hard evidence that gets pushed off the table all the while. You should see "Expelled..." by Ben Stein...if you're not already too prejudiced against it."
Expelled... wow... this is exactly what I mean about you being clueless about the science involved. Expelled shows little awareness whatsoever of the meat of the claims of evolution, and no awareness at all that there are already volumes of rebuttals to every one of their arguments against evolution (many of which weren't even arguments; even if it was true that acceptance of evolution leads to eugenics and genocide, that would say absolutely nothing about whether evolution is true). Expelled barely stirred up any controversy because it wasn't even Behe-caliber misunderstanding. It was just embarrassing, scholastically-speaking. That you hold it in high regard really doesn't help your case.
I suppose you will dismiss this as prejudice, but prejudice is judging something *before* evaluating it. I don't think I could recommend Expelled to anyone even if I didn't accept evolution.
"So, if I "understood" this science to which you refer, I'd have no choice but to agree with it? There are 2 sides to every coin. Even amongst scientists there are opposing views. Stop pretending that you have absolute truth because you absolutely refuse to see anything else."
If you understood the science to which I refer, you'd have knowledgeable rebuttals to it. You'd show signs of understanding the content of claims for evolution and you'd be able to explain exactly where they fall short. Instead I see people responding to your arguments over and over and over, and the next time you comment about evolution you just use the exact same failed argument you did before, as if you didn't even bother to read the responses to check if maybe, just maybe, someone had more insight into it than you do (which is very likely, since you don't seem to have better than a high-school level understanding of it).
But in typical postmodern anti-intellectual fashion you seem to find expertise offensive, so the expertise of many of your commenters probably doesn't interest you very much.
If you think that science and skepticism have anything to do with absolute truth, then we just have something else to add to the growing pile of things you don't understand about science and skepticism. - Paal, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2http://instantrimshot.com/
but seriously, that's an awesome way to sequester O2 -- definitely a lot less frightening that littering the sky with particles to reflect energy! - CrazedLeper, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1"Everything starts over" because? Just what is "life" in the first place? How, with all the factors working against it has *any* life "arisen" in the first place? There is another dimension to this story to which you are all being systematically blinded (by consent). This rather fundamental question is consistently overlooked because the only possible answer would have to come from *outside* the realm of observable life... Yes 'supernatural' logically comes into view.
- CrazedLeper, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1@carbonetic said:
"Whatever semantics you choose to adopt, evidence *for* the Earth being round also constitutes evidence *against* the claim that the Earth is flat. The relationship between geological evidence and the flood claim is quite similar."
And yet there is plenty of geological evidence that supports the flood "claim". The Colorado river does not have--and has never had--the potential to carve out the Grand Canyon. Furthermore, if it did (over 'millions of years') then wind erosion should be apparent toward the top of the canyon but water erosion toward the bottom. Additionally, the rock strata shows evidence of having been "sorted" by settling whilst submerged in water, a theory that is compatible with the relative flatness of the entire top of the region. That's one way of looking at it. Feel free to discard it if it doesn't sound "evolutionary" enough for you.
---------------------------------------------
"Expelled... wow... this is exactly what I mean about you being clueless about the science involved. Expelled shows little awareness whatsoever of the meat of the claims of evolution, and no awareness at all that there are already volumes of rebuttals to every one of their arguments against evolution (many of which weren't even arguments; even if it was true that acceptance of evolution leads to eugenics and genocide, that would say absolutely nothing about whether evolution is true)."
Well you've just won the "missed the point" award for November. The point of "Expelled" was neither science nor whether or not evolution is true but the fact that a debate amongst fully educated, qualified scientists is being silenced.
----------------------------------------------------
"Expelled barely stirred up any controversy because it wasn't even Behe-caliber misunderstanding. It was just embarrassing, scholastically-speaking. That you hold it in high regard really doesn't help your case."
What could have been more embarrassing than the evolutionist who spewed baseless, pointless opinion about how "boring" creation was? I'll tell you: The same "scientist" claims that life (all life) got started "on the backs of crystals". Wow. You'd think he'd have a sample to show. And since you want to throw Behe into it, I accept your challenge. Irreducible complexity stands but don't take my word for it: write a response to this post and then open your computer (while it's still on) and pop 3 random chips (you can't look at the schematics, that would be interference by intelligence) off your motherboard and then click "save reply". If I see your reply then Irreducible Complexity is false--but that still won't make evolution true.
----------------------------------------------------
"I suppose you will dismiss this as prejudice, but prejudice is judging something *before* evaluating it. I don't think I could recommend Expelled to anyone even if I didn't accept evolution."
I thought it was excellent. Ben did a great job of being unbiased and giving a voice to everyone and if anyone came out looking bad, it was their own fault. (The backs of crystals, sheesh. {facepalm} )
----------------------------------------------------
"If you understood the science to which I refer, you'd have knowledgeable rebuttals to it. You'd show signs of understanding the content of claims for evolution and you'd be able to explain exactly where they fall short."
How did life begin? Case closed.
----------------------------------------------------
"Instead I see people responding to your arguments over and over and over, and the next time you comment about evolution you just use the exact same failed argument you did before, as if you didn't even bother to read the responses to check if maybe, just maybe, someone had more insight into it than you do (which is very likely, since you don't seem to have better than a high-school level understanding of it)."
I have neither the responsibility nor the interest in completely immersing my mind into the error that is Neverlution (yes, I do think that's funny). I don't need to explore the error in full because the foundation is faulty. You and your ilk have simply whipped up a frothy cloud of uncertainty into which you have sought to bury the burning questions that your pedantic little theory can't extinguish. Until you have a beginning for your story, you have nothing at all. Furthermore, kicking that rather inconvenient problem off to a separate discussion and calling it "Abiogenesis" isn't going to cut it. That's not an answer it's an escape tactic.
------------------------------------------------
"But in typical postmodern anti-intellectual fashion you seem to find expertise offensive, so the expertise of many of your commenters probably doesn't interest you very much."
I've seen little evidence of expertise in anything beyond propaganda.
------------------------------------------------
"If you think that science and skepticism have anything to do with absolute truth, then we just have something else to add to the growing pile of things you don't understand about science and skepticism."
huh? - Halleys5th, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Similarly, the creation of the Deccan Traps in India could have been the main cause of the K-T boundary and the extinction of the dinosaurs.
This Wikipedia article doesn't say exactly that, but Ian Plimer does in his book Heaven and Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93T_boundary# ... - carbonetc, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1I shake my head at myself every time I continue this conversation, because I know it's a total waste of time and I have a lot on my to-do list, but I'll bite once more.
"And yet there is plenty of geological evidence that supports the flood "claim". The Colorado river does not have--and has never had--the potential to carve out the Grand Canyon..."
And have you looked at the rebuttals to these claims? Or did you just stop there? If there just happened to be a very good reason why most of the geological community isn't impressed by this argument, you would never know about it. And you seem to have engineered it this way. Their expertise in the matter can't possibly reach you because for you, expertise is indoctrination. Well, unless you agree with the conclusion; you apparently respect the expertise of the person who came up with this Colorado River argument, and somehow I doubt you hold him to the same rigorous standard as you do the people who argue the Flood never happened. How do you determine what has merit and what's propaganda? You don't have a standard I can discern beyond checking whose conclusion is most appealing to you and backing that one.
"Well you've just won the "missed the point" award for November. The point of "Expelled" was neither science nor whether or not evolution is true but the fact that a debate amongst fully educated, qualified scientists is being silenced..."
Oh? He spent a lot of the movie trying to paint evolution as false for a guy who wasn't trying to disprove evolution.
I'm not surprised Ben Stein appeals to you; he's proved himself an accomplished cherry-picker. I don't doubt that there are scientists out there who don't accept evolution that are looked down upon in their work, or perhaps even suffer for it career-wise for political reasons. Science is done by humans, after all. But Stein's claim is that there is a large number of scientists who doubt evolution and are being silenced by some vast conspiracy. But if you look at the numbers, the portion of scientists who don't accept evolution is very low, percentage-wise, even in anonymous surveys. And not surprisingly most of the scientists who don't accept it aren't even biologists. They're often physicists or chemists who never studied evolution in their lives, but because they have the "scientist" title they're granted authority, and Stein is very happy to take them since they inflate his numbers. Like most evolution deniers he tries to make it look like there's a debate between two equal (or nearly equal) sides, the doubters and the believers, when really the ratio is more like one in ten thousand or a hundred thousand. Not much of a controversy. Have you ever heard of Project Steve? Just on a whim, Stephen Jay Gould decided to see how many scientists named Steve (or Stephen, or Stefan, etc.) accepted evolution. It's a completely voluntary list that you can opt into if you're a scientist and your name is Steve. It was just done for fun, but it's interesting when you compare the list to a list of scientists who claim to reject evolution. Not only is the list of Steves longer, but it contains a higher percentage of biologists than the list of deniers does. Where are the bullied masses that the big bad establishment is trying to squelch?
But this isn't your point (nor does this hold any sway with you, because expertise is only indoctrination and widespread support only shows the propaganda was successful). Your point is that they should have the freedom to dispute evolution. Guess what; they do. All ID advocates have to do is propose some sort of test that could verify the ID hypothesis. Like you said, it's the evidence *for* that counts. We're all still waiting for even a single proposal. When ID advocates complain that their science is being rejected when they apparently refuse to do any science in the first place, well, it's hard to have any sympathy.
And if someone did find a way to prove that ID is the answer, he would win a Nobel Prize. I know you think science is a dogmatic materialist conspiracy, but self-correction is built into science and it has a long history of rewarding people who overturn the scientific understanding of the day. Show me any religious organization that would do the same.
"Irreducible complexity stands..."
The irreducible complexity argument is old news. An eye can form in such a way that every step of its formation is useful to the organism. Same with wings. Same with various microscopic structures (like the famous flagellum). The argument has been dismantled over and over and over. Why don't you know this? Because you've engineered it so you won't ever find out. You read Behe and then you called it a day. And since his responders are just slaves to propaganda, their expertise (indoctrination) couldn't hold any weight with you anyway.
Seriously, if evolution was actually true, how would you ever discover it? Would you even care if it was?
And no, the falsity of IC doesn't make evolution true. The mountain of evidence you're ignoring does.
"I have neither the responsibility nor the interest in completely immersing my mind into the error that is Neverlution..."
Your lack of study shows, trust me. But study is required; evolution (like quantum physics, chemistry, etc.) is too complex and too far outside of the scope of common human experience for mere common sense to be sufficient in evaluating it.
"Until you have a beginning for your story, you have nothing at all..."
Say you're walking through the desert and you come across the corpse of someone who collapsed of dehydration. It happened recently so you can still see his tracks going for miles in the distance. You decide to follow them because you want to know where this person came from; maybe it will give you a clue about where his family is so you can inform them of what happened. You follow the tracks for a day until finally they stop. A strong wind has covered the rest of them over.
Are you really saying that just because you can't uncover the origin of this person's tracks, it somehow means that you can't study the tracks that are visible and make conclusions about what happened in that particular span of time? The person fell here, changed direction there, threw up here, crawled for a while there. This is why evolution doesn't require the beginning to be known. However life got started, in the time since it has clearly evolved.
But even if I had a Ph.D. in biology it wouldn't matter. You're intentionally and admittedly incurious about the subject; there's no hope of me saying anything of interest to you. - HtomSirveaux, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1We've known about carbon dioxide sequestration for a while now. This is just the first time someone has published the idea that the weathering of the now Appalachian mountains was a sink of carbon dioxide large enough to affect the climate.
- obeythefist, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2And the hole in the O-zone layer! What happened to that?
It's almost as if people heeded the warnings and avoided catastrophe! - DankBuddz, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1"you really are an idiot if you think acid rain destroyed that forest. put the bong down"
HAHAHAH! You're right, it was the little tree destroying gnomes that the evil scientists hired to do the job...
What a ***** idiot. - Rixta, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1I'm no scientist but that seems a bit far fetched to me....when you take into consideration the overall area of hundreds of thousands of square miles of Earth that were affected by the ice age and here it is suggested that a tiny area (by comparison) of 1500km (932 miles) caused the ice age I have to be a bit skeptical.
Not saying it's wrong, just needs more detailed info. - therightside, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1you really are an idiot if you think acid rain destroyed that forest. put the bong down
- Fleagleman, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1Why are we now discussing European women?
- DankBuddz, on 11/05/2009, -2/+2Newsflash to captain retard:
Al Gore has no impact on the reality of climate change. Pull your head out of your ass. - CrazedLeper, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1First of all, the Bible never stated (or attempted to state) in specific terms, the age of the earth or anything before Adam. Second, there has been one "extinction event" to which all ancient cultures testify--a flood. All the evidence for this flood has been misrepresented by false claims, stories, theories and half-truths like "Ice Ages". There never was an Ice Age. 4000+ years ago, water covered the entire planet and froze on the poles. It has been melting at an accelerating ever since giving the illusion of "global warming" now. It would seem that Ockham's razor favors such simplicity.
Second, you don't know what has been happening for "hundreds of millions of years". No one has observed it and every suggestion in favor of that THEORY would have to be conjecture at best--or an outright lie at worst.
Finally, "Creationists" don't have a problem with the extinction of species you cite. People who are willing to face the insurmountable truth that all living systems were clearly designed by intelligence don't need life to be an accident which is at the mercy of every sort of threat. Such persons *know* that life originates from an extra-physical source and until you Neverlutionists can point out the crystal that spontaneously generates living cells, your little theory amounts to a hill of magic beans. - CrazedLeper, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1@carbonetc said:
"I used to be a theist, and I used to believe in all sorts of supernatural things. I didn't lose those beliefs because I closed myself to them. I lost those beliefs because they were never useful. They didn't offer explanations. They weren't corroborated by the world around us. I found many of those beliefs to be incoherent and juvenile once I really put the work into examining them. "
I, too, abandoned the belief set which I was handed at birth for the same reasons. Anyone who does not abandon beliefs that are not useful in some way becomes a fool by means of them. Furthermore, I went through an atheist phase as well but found no answers there, either.
---------------------------------------------------------
"The day a supernatural explanation proves itself to be useful is the day I will readily adopt a belief in it. It's not that I lack eagerness, it's that the claims so far lack robustness and substance."
That is your opinion based upon your life experience. Though your life experience is 1/2 your choice and 1/2 the choices of others, your opinion and all consequences of it are binding only upon yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------
"You think your beliefs are empirically supported because you relentlessly cherry-pick. I could pull any belief out of a hat and find a way to support it if I just ignore all of the evidence against it."
First thing I'm thinking is that evidence doesn't go "against". Every evidence is an evidence *for*. Second, I'm glad you understand that *anything* can be "proven" from cherry-picked evidence because that's exactly what Neverlution is. There are plenty of perspectives, alternate explanations and flat-out, hard evidence that gets pushed off the table all the while. You should see "Expelled..." by Ben Stein...if you're not already too prejudiced against it.
---------------------------------------------------------
"You criticize people for rejecting claims of a certain sort offhand, and then you reject mountains of evidence offhand because it doesn't complement your worldview."
I could accuse you of the same. Evidence is subjective. You don't know what *my* world view is.
---------------------------------------------------------
"You continually demonstrate a lack of any understanding of what the science you reject actually claims and a lack of the curiosity it would require to come to that understanding."
So, if I "understood" this science to which you refer, I'd have no choice but to agree with it? There are 2 sides to every coin. Even amongst scientists there are opposing views. Stop pretending that you have absolute truth because you absolutely refuse to see anything else.
---------------------------------------------------------
"When it comes to insults, sometimes the shoe fits. You are intellectually lazy. It's in your interest to recognize this."
Again, a matter of perspective. I think it lazy to park oneself in the shadow of self-appointed "experts" and suckle error at their collective teat. - carbonetc, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1I used to be a theist, and I used to believe in all sorts of supernatural things. I didn't lose those beliefs because I closed myself to them. I lost those beliefs because they were never useful. They didn't offer explanations. They weren't corroborated by the world around us. I found many of those beliefs to be incoherent and juvenile once I really put the work into examining them.
The day a supernatural explanation proves itself to be useful is the day I will readily adopt a belief in it. It's not that I lack eagerness, it's that the claims so far lack robustness and substance.
You think your beliefs are empirically supported because you relentlessly cherry-pick. I could pull any belief out of a hat and find a way to support it if I just ignore all of the evidence against it. You criticize people for rejecting claims of a certain sort offhand, and then you reject mountains of evidence offhand because it doesn't complement your worldview. You continually demonstrate a lack of any understanding of what the science you reject actually claims and a lack of the curiosity it would require to come to that understanding. When it comes to insults, sometimes the shoe fits. You are intellectually lazy. It's in your interest to recognize this. -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is