What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
181 Comments
- drlha, on 01/30/2008, -4/+119As I commented on the blog: If you look on this page: http://www.linkedin.com/in/joannetudor it would appear that Computer Tudor was owned by someone called "Joanne Tudor", so was a play on her name and not dumb at all.
- leerayIG88, on 01/30/2008, -4/+84"Be quiet, Brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip"
- zachtib, on 01/30/2008, -4/+61>> There were no lions, tigers, cats etc. There was only the parent of this type of animal family... whatever that was. (Sabertooth tiger?)
Wouldn't that be admitting evolution, though? - jknation, on 01/30/2008, -4/+51I actually thought that use of trash bin to level the ladder was smart.. little bit dangerous but clearly not brainless.
- Edwaldo, on 01/30/2008, -15/+53the creationist ones always get me, (explaining how dinosaurs fit on Noah's Ark?) incredible.
- beloitpiper, on 01/30/2008, -2/+39First, please name ANY mathematician that has concluded that. Secondly, I hope you do not honestly believe Noah lived among saber-toothed tigers. The last of them disappeared 9,000 years ago, and Noah, if he even existed, lived 4,000 years ago at the most.
Ugh. - weiwuwei, on 01/30/2008, -13/+44NO DUMPLING!!
- joshman5k, on 01/30/2008, -1/+32How did he get the kangaroos on to the boat? have you ever tried to catch one of those!!!
- raniya, on 01/30/2008, -2/+24Are you really believing this stuff? No lions, no tigers...Noah, if indeed existed (since the story is borrowed from another story in the Epic of Gilgamesh) lived in the 10 or 11th century bc perhaps..
And I can tell you that there were no dinosaurs then. - ZWarren69, on 01/30/2008, -8/+29Exclusive photos of retards, in the wild.
- Shirt, on 01/30/2008, -1/+19Seriously, Christian (or Jew) or not I don't understand why people would ever assume Dinosaurs would have been around then. Completely ridiculous. But also hilarious.
- hdar3415, on 01/30/2008, -9/+24These are the people that make life interesting for the rest of us.
- BrokenBokken, on 01/30/2008, -7/+22That would be the shallow, algae infested section of the gene pool.
- Double0Doug, on 01/30/2008, -5/+18Oh SNAP!
- gordonp, on 01/30/2008, -0/+13Who is brian?
- shadeOfGrey, on 01/30/2008, -2/+11That is a perfectly cromulent quote.
- wildfire, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9"Esoteric?"
"Could it mean sexy?"
"I think it's a science term."
"Fellas, fellas! Esoteric means delicious!" - hansblix, on 01/30/2008, -1/+10What I wanna know is how did the termites survive? Surely they were'nt allowed on the ark...
- ycohain, on 01/30/2008, -1/+10I thought I had a brain but I have to admit it took me a second to get the "this door is closed" sign
- LemonDefragger, on 01/30/2008, -4/+13Those comments did not really do it for me.
- darrenpauli, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9(Excuse my caps but) KELLY, YOU ARE A ***** MORON. YOU AND ALL OF YOUR ***** IDIOTIC HALLUCINATING CREATIONIST FRIENDS. STOP SPREADING YOUR ***** DUMB BELIEFS AROUND AND WASTING REAL ESTATE WITH YOUR LITTLE ALICE IN WONDERLAND MUSEUMS. We need a vaccine for creationism. ***** IDIOT. Everyone else is entitled to their beliefs, but creationism is dangerous to the human genome.
- Merendino, on 01/30/2008, -3/+10then what dinosaur took care of it when it was young and helped it grow into adulthood? Maybe thats why all the dinosaurs went extinct huh? The adult dinosaurs couldn't raise the younger ones because they couldnt' fit on the ship and all the younger ones died from lack of raising.... man it all makes so much sense to me now.
- spineaches, on 01/30/2008, -2/+9that last guy is my hero.
- EvilFerret, on 01/30/2008, -3/+10 University of Phoenix...............Red flag.
- thecompkid, on 01/30/2008, -1/+8Wait a minute. You justify your creationist argument by saying that species evolved since 4000 years ago? Anyone else seeing the huge glaring contradiction?
EDIT: Crap, already said, I didn't see it though, honest, maybe if zachtib used the reply button... - Csaliture, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6I dont even think it would be that dangerous. I dont think the trash bin is going to go anywhere. Either way, who would hire a professional to hang christmas lights?
- Miknarf, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7no their is'nt. Those are just sudo-scientific terms made up by creationists.
- sealhands, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6future = heat death
- WolverineBlue, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6"during Noah's time, there would not have been the deviation of species"
Yeah, because there's nothing like reducing every species to a population of 2 to increase genetic diversity. - oldhick, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Can you show me where Christianity claims that? As with many people, I have a bit of Christianity in my past. There was a point where I studied the bible closely. Never in my life did I read a passage that said the bible must be taken literally word for word. The bible is supposed to be inspired by God, not written by God.
Many Christian scholars contend that many of the stories in the Bible (Revelations is a good example) are similar to modern day political cartoons. Without the context of living in those times its difficult to read and fully understand the points they were making.
Finally, Christianity is a broad term that includes many different denominations, practices, and teachings. No one branch of Christianity believes exactly the same as another. Heck, even Mormons are calling themselves Christian these days. - TheFiestyFaun, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5God told Noah to build an arc 150 cubits long by 100 cubits tall by 100 cubits wide. A cubit is at most 18 inches. So the largest the boat could have possible been is 225x150x150. Excluding food, walls, a house for Noah, and other supplies. It would still be impossible for two of every animal on the boat.
- directedition, on 01/31/2008, -5/+9Careful now. If evolution is true, then a cat or something should jump out whenever I open a can of peanut butter. And obviously Bananas are designed to fit into the human hand. Stop being so blind!!
- akh4x0r, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4u ju57 n33d 70 kn0w t3h 1337 5p34k
- yacks, on 01/30/2008, -3/+7And you don't neede to be a gud spelir to fix compooters.
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Yes, the Bible condemns macro-evolution. If you take the geneologies found in the Bible (family trees) it states how long each person lived for. Do the math, and you end up with about 6000 years. The Bible made that up, not man.
- themastersb, on 01/30/2008, -4/+8Even the thought of fitting on the billions of species of Earth on a single boat is dumb.
- woohhaa, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3I've done worst trying to run CAT5. Thank god for wifi.
- TRENT310, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Wifi is still slower...that's why I continue to put the effort into running network cable.
- TheFiestyFaun, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3I wonder what I would find in your dilapidated third world ***** hole you call home...
- oldhick, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Actually, Christianity DOES NOT teach the literal interpretation of the Bible. To be fair here, you need to define your terms. First the word Christianity encompasses many denominations, branches, and teachings. No one denomination or branch believes exactly what another believes. There are many examples of different believes within different branches and denominations. So, your particular views on Christianity require a literal interpretation. That is great for you, but not everyone believes what you believe.
Second, it is important to understand that most Christian scholars (including the ones that determined which letters would make up the Bible) believe that the writings in the Bible were inspired by God, not written by God. Therefor each individual authors writings are reflective of their unique individualism. This is why letters by Matthew, Mark, etc.. contain differences and focus on different things.
Also, alternative interpretations of the Bible do not explicitly indicate it is foulable. For instance, many Christian scholars who except evolution do not believe the Bible is foulable, rather they believe the story of creation to be one similar to a political cartoon. It was a convenient way for God to communicate the creation of the earth to man without having to send the arch angel of Evolutionary theory to earth to explain the intricate details of evolution to an extremely poorly educated mankind.
None of us are the authority on God and we shouldn't make exclusive claims to the intent and meaning of the Bible. Its fairly clear that after years of war and arguments between Christians over this very subject that God must have intentionally obscured some things from us. - NathanielJ, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3I repeat what I read.
- davidpeace2002, on 01/30/2008, -7/+10I'm a proud atheist. I'll bash christianity for you!!
- ostracize, on 01/30/2008, -2/+5Christianity doesn't teach the defence of a literal interpretation and rejection of counter evidence at all costs. It's bashing Creationism (a noble endeavor), not Christianity.
- JCPahl, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4She'd be doing her future children a favor, yes.
- Tetraca, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3"We're now approaching a natural habitat of bardus anthropithicus, also known as the common moron. They typically live in fairly large dwellings, and hunt in packs in their natural feeding ground, commonly referred to as a 'mall'. Bardus anthropithicus typically does not feed on sick prey, dubbed 'bargains', but rather goes for the richer targets, depending on what is in or out in this season. They also are capable of wielding primitive tools such as 'credit cards' to take down their prey. These cards often come with the price of wearing down quickly, so multiple cards are often carried."
"Although they aren't very shy creatures, if we disturb them just right, their shill tones will catch ear of the moronic guards, and even though they might not be the cleverest creatures in the world, their stingers are real buggers. Let's try and catch one." - tdowling, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Yes Kelly, I'm Christian, and I grew up in a church community which treats the Bible as a moral guidebook of stories that, while at their essence spoke of truths, were written to particular audiences and within particular historical contexts. We understand that the Bible was presented in a way that needed to fit within the knowledge-base and feasible understanding of the original readers.
Obviously there's a lot more scientific knowledge now - and why should explanations of the world that were given without any of that knowledge supersede what science has told us? Why does *our* context not count?
Unless you reject all the scientific knowledge - then that gives us a completely different discussion. - JohnnyRad, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3you wouldn't read digg every 5 minutes
- kelly, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3Because you bash Christians you automatically think I bash atheists?
- sougly, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3They're not "sudo"-scientific terms, neither are they pseudo-scientific terms. Scientists use them but creationists define them differently to twist logic to their agenda. You hear them use it a lot, but they ignore what the scientific community regards as macroevolution.
- Magnus150, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3That movie sucked.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 182 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is