What is Digg?674 Comments
- Erich100, on 05/14/2008, -4/+213FTA- Only 19% say it is acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views – 16% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats
So,19% of those polled think it's OK for elected officials to lie, either by changing the report to more closely agree with their non-scientific opinions or lie through omission.
Is it me or does that sound like insanity? - inactive, on 05/14/2008, -88/+320I don't want a debate. I just want to figure out some way to efficiently eliminate the scourge of willful scientific ignorance from among the American voting public. Perhaps we could ship all religious zealots who think the earth is 6 thousand years old to some other country where they'd find a more welcoming intellectual environment, like Iran or Sudan. Or maybe we could base the selection on intelligence -- just give IQ tests to everyone and send the bottom quartile packing. Another option is to just neutron bomb the south and start over.
What have religious zealots done for humanity anyway? Has a religious fundamentalist ever invented anything useful? Have they ever produced a lifesaving technology? A vaccine for polio? Anything? I'm not talking about centuries ago. I'm talking about within the last 100 years. - Bagos1, on 05/14/2008, -4/+11585% would switch the channel.
- drlha, on 05/14/2008, -12/+106The Europeans already thought of the idea of shipping all the religious zealots to another country. Those zealots are referred to Americans as "The Pilgrims".
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -19/+105This would be quite a stark contrast.
You'd have the Dems on one side supporting stem cell research (while trying to be carful enough to avoid pissing off the religious right), McCain on the other side still confused about whether HIV transmission can be prevented through condom use, and then Ron paul in his own special little corner talking about gutting NASA, as well as all scientific research funding, and still mumbling on about how he doesn't accept evolution...
This would be a score one for the dems. Although I must say I do respect McCain for supporting embryonic stell cell research, and not giving in to party pressures - phrenzy, on 05/14/2008, -8/+67Not that it applies much TODAY, but historically it does seem that Christianity has been a foe rather than friend of science. Greece, Rome and Egypt progressed rapidly and had one great invention after another under "pagan" religions. Why? Because pagan religions were more about ritual than dogma. Also, by their very nature, pagan religions were tolerant of diverse religious thoughts. One person might pray to "Janus" and another to Mithras and there were no wars over this.
It wasn't until after Cosntantine, when Christianity was declared the ONE "true" religion, and all others false that things started going down hill. Why? Because Christianity taught blind obedience, and worse was by nature exclusionary. So, as Christianity took hold as the status quo, to question anything was to question God himself.
What did we get as a result from this thinking? The dark ages. The intellectual curiosity of the Greeks and Romans was replaced by the willful ignorance of the medieval Christians.
This continued for hundreds of years until finally people started questioning the supposed absolute truth of Christianity and only then did western curiosity begin again with the Renaissance.
Luckily, since this time, mainstream Christianity has never managed to stop critical thought altogether, although it is still an impediment to it.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -29/+86I'm not talking about scientists who happen to be "religious people." I'm talking about jesus freaks. Fundamentalists. Snake handlers. People who pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to stand in big stadiums and worship hypocrites like Ted Faggard.
These people aren't making any scientific discoveries. They're doing nothing to advance human well being. They vote to keep evolution out of text books because they hate science. They can't wait for the world to end so that jesus can come and send all the nonbelievers to hell, so why should they invest in measures that might actually *prolong* human civilization?
Yes, they should be eliminated. Personally, I think shipping them off to other countries is going too easy on them. Don't you think it would have been preferable if, in 1932, Germany had taken similar measures with the nazis? Do you think it was wise for Russia to let Lenin come back to Russia in 1917? These people were no worse than the pentecostals and southern baptists who are working to impose an oppressive, fundamentalist, authoritarian form of government in America. - gwaggy12, on 05/14/2008, -1/+52wait, wait...how will they know who to pander to? Science is REALLY complex
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -8/+53Because you constant;y say the stupidest ***** every time you comment.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -9/+56How come your party is always the one trying to stifle the debate though? Bush has worked overtime to silence scientists who say things he finds politically inexpedient. What gives?
Why do you people hate science so much, JimmySpaza? - reflex768, on 05/14/2008, -2/+46>>>Is it me or does that sound like insanity?
Nah, sounds like a poll. There's a kind of 20% spillage rule in polling I think. You can find 20% of people who will agree the world is flat because they think it's a) funny b) they're annoyed by the poll c) they're not paying attention d) they misuderstood the question e) the pollster misinterpreted the response, etc, etc. You'll see that weird 20% appear and reappear in polls no matter what the question is. - Hetman, on 05/14/2008, -1/+42Evolution is biological science. They would have to discuss it. ID is a religion so they would not discuss it. That is how it would have to be.
- elamr, on 05/14/2008, -10/+51As long as it does NOT get into religion. Talk about space exploration, medical advancement, information systems, global warming anything but the useless subject of intelligent design versus evolution (aka atheism verus religion).
- Pinkertinkle, on 05/14/2008, -4/+39 85% of Americans Wouldn't Understand a Presidential Debate on Science
- davewelsh79, on 05/14/2008, -1/+37Intelligent design vs. evolution is nothing like religion vs. atheism. Even semi-rational religious people can see that it's wrong to teach creationism in science classrooms. Leave that kind of ***** for church and teach science in science class.
- haxmire, on 05/14/2008, -1/+35Hey now I live in the South and everyday I am confronted with fighting against the huge masses of ignorant religious people. I would hope you could exclude the intelligents down here and give us time to evacuate before you bomb the South.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -6/+38Because you are and you do.
- Fordi, on 05/14/2008, -3/+35"Am I to be killed as you suggest?"
No, but a geology class may be in order.
"Christians made a deadly mistake by not eliminating atheist communist scum in Russia from the face of this earth."
Ah yes, hypocrisy. I knew you YEC's were good for something.
By the by, are you under the impression that Russia invented Athism? - Trixrox, on 05/14/2008, -3/+42The United States as a whole needs to invest in science. NASA should be given more money, the national science foundation should, we should really hit hard with it. Science can solve issues. There is so much to learn, so much to do. Energy Independence, Cancer...etc.
- korvan504521, on 05/14/2008, -10/+51The way democarcy works is if YOU want to vote, then you have to let THEM vote. Other wise it doesn't work.
You ban the jesus freaks today, someone bans you tomorrow. Until we get to a dictatorship. - paranoid614, on 05/14/2008, -0/+33why wouldnt 85% of americans want a presidential debate in ANY topic?!
- Sornos, on 05/14/2008, -4/+32http://youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
Right from the horse's mouth. - takamalak, on 05/14/2008, -9/+38You have a good point. We should treat religious fundamentalists like inner city gang members. They both destroy lives and are harmful to society.
- Ramble, on 05/14/2008, -0/+26Even I'd debate him and win.
- o0joshua0o, on 05/14/2008, -1/+26For a minute I thought you actually believed the Earth is only 6,000 years old. LOL. You got me. Good joke.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -21/+53This debate would be ended quickly with the sentence, "There is no, nor will there ever be, scientific evidence for the existence of a god."
- bicyclethief, on 05/14/2008, -0/+28That's why it should be a debate to the death.
- WasabiBomb, on 05/14/2008, -2/+26Not killed, but certainly laughed at for your willful, invincible ignorance. Believing that the world is only six thousand years old requires a stunning amount of conscious avoidance of facts and evidence.
I'm not even going to touch the "communist=atheist" argument you're attempting, there. It's been disproven time and again, and if you honestly believe in a Young Earth, there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. - geekchic, on 05/14/2008, -4/+29Three politicans in a debate - should put the "intelligent" in "inteligent design" to rest.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -22/+44Fundamentalist christians aren't interested in democracy though. They think the bible ought to take precedent over the constitution. They would tear up the 1st amendment, which lays the very foundation for American democracy. They would substitute religious theocracy for secular rule. By taking them out of the picture we would be protecting American democracy, not undercutting it.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -14/+41Many of the greatest scientists of all time were Jews. People like Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, Richard Feynman, Stephen Pinker, Leon Kass, the list goes on.
Fundamentalist christians have done nothing of the sort. If they had their way we would still be living in squalor and filth, and anyone who questioned their fairy tale dogma would be put to death. They're no better than the Khmer Rouge, condemning anyone with the intelligence to question their madness.
America is quickly losing its scientific edge, and we will not be able to reverse that trend until we rid ourselves of these half-wits. - kingmanic, on 05/14/2008, -0/+21Actually, you make the human race look foolish. There is no debate possible. It's meta physics masquerading as science vs science. Any debate would lend infinitely more credit to ID then it deserves. The wisest course of action would be to mercilessly ridicule and mock people like you.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -3/+23You already posted that as your JimmySpaz ID. You're really getting sloppy. Are you drunk?
- bphicke, on 05/14/2008, -6/+26Get over yourself. He made a valid point.
- avengingturnip, on 05/14/2008, -37/+60Clearly concentration camps with gas chambers are called for. How much better life would be without THOSE people.
- sockpuppets, on 05/14/2008, -0/+19"Honey what channel is the debat... OOOH SPONGEBOB!"
- DiggsOnlyJew, on 05/14/2008, -13/+35"What have inner city gangs done for humanity anyway? Has a gang member ever invented anything useful? Have they ever produced a lifesaving technology? A vaccine for polio? Anything? I'm not talking about centuries ago. I'm talking about within the last 100 years."
Let's firebomb all cities with gangs as well, and Africa, what has the entire continent ever done for the good of humanity [and I, obviously, mean in the last 100 years] let's neutron bomb it all. How about Mexico, has any Mexican ever discovered a vaccine for polio? Let's nuke them. - kingmanic, on 05/14/2008, -2/+20We will administer tests, and at the end of the tests we will send the lower quartile to another planet in a ship we will name "Arc B".
- elliotys, on 05/14/2008, -2/+19I'm pretty sure none of the candidates has the scientific knowledge to have a debate. Two lawyers and a sailor debating science would not be beneficial to anyone.
- pintomp3, on 05/14/2008, -1/+17ID is about a scientific as astrology.
- Ramble, on 05/14/2008, -0/+16If ID was a science it shouldn't be stifled. Good thing it's not one then.
- bjs3171, on 05/14/2008, -3/+20why? it would be a debate on science, not religion.
- Phyraxus, on 05/14/2008, -1/+19I'm not your friend, guy.
- lead2thehead, on 05/14/2008, -1/+16That debate would be comedy gold.
- kingmanic, on 05/14/2008, -0/+15No, in fact there isn't any science in ID.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -2/+25There are no credible scientists with evidence contrary to man-made global warming. There are credible scientists who claim there isn't enough data to be conclusive, and I fully agree with that position, but there is no credible scientist to my knowledge that has argued that man-made global warming is completely impossible. The real problem here is the people who claim that nothing should be done, because while I fully agree that global warming should be studied more thoroughly, by the time we have conclusive data, it'll be too late to do anything about it.
- sindex, on 05/14/2008, -0/+16I think what serif69 was getting at is: "Why would the government, under any circumstance, be in the business of suppressing or altering any scientific report?" Not, "Why would a government official read a scientific report at all?"
- futimazar, on 05/14/2008, -0/+16Wow you guys are ***** retards. Yeah lets debate something that has absolutely zero bit of tangible proof and expect a winner. I bet I could debate the existence of leprechauns and win! You can't debate irrational belief in 2000 year old fairy tales, sorry folks.
- wolferz, on 05/14/2008, -7/+23Way to stereotype dumb ass. If you represent the intelligence of northerners we might be better off with the religious zealots.
The south is not some impoverished third would country inhabited by only backwoods rednecks. There are intelligent and open minded people here. In fact... I would dare say there are as many open minded and intelligent people here as the north (roughly 1 out of every 500 people in both locations.) Just because your world view HAPPENS to agree with science doesn't make you smart. When did you walk into a lab and test any of the theories regarding physics? When did you travel to the grand canyon and count the layers of rock? When did you travel to the Galapagos Islands and study the wildlife there? Answer: you haven't. How do I know? I don't. However, you've already demonstrated how woefully stupid you are and i doubt some one as self righteous and ignorant as you would ever actually bother do learn anything unless it was handed to you.
All you have done is blindly accepted what you were told by science instead of blindly accepting what you were told by some religious nut. Then you try to spin this as some how making you better than any other person who blindly accepts what he is told. You are no different from the religious zealots you claim to be better than. If your ignorance doesn't present itself through religious stupidity it will present itself elsewhere instead.
/rant - cheezintern, on 05/14/2008, -0/+16The Amish make very nice rugs and cheese.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 698 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is