What is Digg?500 Comments
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -47/+359"this is not that surprising considering that bush (administration) is a complete ***** moron, he is one of the first presidents that actually needs to be assassinated; at least Nixon quit... ...how can anyone who considers themselves to be competent be a creationist?!?!?"
The secret service should be showing up at your home momentarily... - birch25, on 10/12/2007, -31/+216i think i speak for rational people (religious and not alike) when i say..."hey, bush admin, stfu! you've ***** up the war on terror, the war in iraq, our nation's reputation, and countless other things we hold dear, and just when it looks like you can't sink any lower, you tell us the grand canyon was formed by noah's flood...why? what possible gain is there in making this claim that is so ludicrous (and ultimately unimportant) for no reason at all. the bible itself doesn't even back up your thought!"
naturally, rational thought is to be avoided at all costs by the bush team. - betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -100/+274When will people wake up. There is no God. The Bible is a fairy tale.
- uberkling, on 10/12/2007, -16/+160America has really and truly been damaged on a fundamental level by this administration. Ethics of stem cell research and WMD's in Iraq aside, things like this are the worst aspect of the Bush administration.
Religious opinion should never, ever, EVER be allowed to be prioritised over science. EVER. It seems from where I'm standing that it's only the fundamentalist christians that seem to have this huge problem with science in general being a direct opposition to their world view. More rational christians, agnostics and most other religions seem much more willing to accept that maybe "both" could be true, or simply push science to a seperate area of belief than their religious faith.
Some people can do a better job ignoring it, some rationalise things like evolution as being simply (and I'm quoting a friend's idea here, for the record I'm an athiest but that's my business) having the seven days of creation being "god days", with the millions of years of evolution, shifting and changing from our perspective seeming much quicker to god as he created the modern day species. I know it's a strange idea but as I said it's my friends, and I actually respect him for trying to rationalise the two ideas together.
Anyway back on topic, people like my friend don't get mortally offended every time they see a physics professor or paleantologist. Those are the kind of people with a faith I can respect. Those that deny basic, evidenced scientic fact to keep their (in my opinion) ***** fairytales intact within their own closed minds shouldn't be running a world superpower.
Disclaimer: I do generalise a bit here, and I myself am somewhat closed-minded about religion. That said I respect the basic point that if I'm right and they're wrong they're worm food, whilst if they're right I burn in eternal hellfire. The difference is I'm willing to accept the risk of said hellfire without imposing my views on them. Meanwhile I got woken up at 7am last saturday by two smartly dressed gits asking if I was interested in finding Jesus. Mull over that. - JimDinger, on 10/12/2007, -14/+153Are they serious? This is ridiculous.
- Ebeniz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+115http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon
The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old (with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years). The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.
The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. Many of the formations were deposited in warm shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advanced and retreated over the edge of a proto-North America. Major exceptions include the Permian Coconino Sandstone which was laid down as sand dunes in a desert and several parts of the Supai Group. - wagesj45, on 10/12/2007, -14/+105Ridiculous indeed. Seems like science is getting its ass kicked by the government anymore. I'm disappointed. Ugh. Where has all the sanity in this country gone? I have no problem with religious views, but I don't like them to be forced on us, and withholding scientific explanations in favor of religious views is just as bad as denying the religion. I have a feeling there would be riots if twenty some books describing the religious history of some holy site were rejected and only a secular book was allowed.
I've heard a lot about a war on Christmas, but it seems to me that the real war is on science. - slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -14/+100Oh god, I almost sprayed Pepsi on the screen when I read the title. hahahahahaha
- pjleonhardt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+92Instead of insulting religious fundamentalists they offend everyone with some common sense.
- Mewchu11, on 10/12/2007, -11/+82And then it melted all those Nazi faces... That was indeed an awesome movie :D
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -12/+80"Oh what does it hurt to offer another opinion? If you read the article the book is actually self-disclosed as it is titled "Grand Canyon: A Different View""
It hurts to offer another opinion when you're not allowed to express the original opinion anymore. Did you even RTFA? The story's about park officials being FORBIDDEN to comment on the Grand Canyon's geological age....
but I guess you just did what Conservatives do best in an argument--change the subject. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+82Shut the ***** up you demagogue.
This has nothing to do with liberals. It has everything to do with science, and a bunch of uppity christian conservatives who don't want to hear things that make them feel uncomfortable.
Take that culture warrior ***** elsewhere. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56Rednecks didn't want to invade Iraq, neo-cons and our war profiteer industry wanted to invade Iraq. Rednecks just endorsed it cuz they wanted to see tanks on TV.
- jasz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+65I'm not American.. but this is embarassing... how is the world's (ex-)greatest power be under the command of such people?
- Mylonite, on 10/12/2007, -13/+63@fleury - you have obviously not read the reading list for Digg - Dawkins responds to both of your little spurts of idiocy in every single one of his books!
You described a skyhook - where you see improbable things, and use even more improbable/impossible things to explain it. Science attempts to seek explanations for improbable things in ways that can actually be tested and refined. Oddly enough, all of the varied branches of science all point in the same general direction - perhaps because they revolve around *facts* even though people like to think they revolve around theories. Science provides us with a way to learn about and understand these things that seem so improbable, and we are now able to describe them in terms that do not require a god to hang a skyhook for us. Who created that initial superpower you speak of anyway?
I'm equally amused by the 'what did I lose' argument - to hear some religious folks talk, you've not only got to worship God, but you've got to worship the right one in the right way with the right chants and the appropriate monetary considerations. In a number of religions and branches, you lose the ability to make your own decisions and you STILL have to know that you might be terribly wrong ('70 VIRGINIANS!') Can you really believe that it costs you nothing to live a religious life? What if you find that God is peaceful, tolerant, and loving, and thinks that the ***** you have put onto your children's children is an unforgivable crime? If what you believe in is just a benevolent force after death that rewards your intentions, why be religious? I strive to be a good person, God or no god. You don't need a religious book or teachings to do right by others. I like to think that any existing God finds GWB's attempt to squash science *much* more disturbing than my adoration of false idols like invisible pink unicorns and FSM. - Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -17/+65"the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood"
What a coincidence! So was the crack in my ass! - Frost9999, on 10/12/2007, -11/+58Are you serious? 'Winter break' and 'happy holidays', is that really what life is like in the USA now? I find it hard to imagine people being so spineless that Christmas is considered offensive. You people don't need a war on terror, you need an election!
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -20/+65Yeah the Grand Canyon was created in Noahs Flood, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq we just haven't found them yet either.
Did I mention I have a bridge in central Ohio for sale? Interested? Just post your bank account number here so I can check to make sure you have the funds. - GTPilot, on 10/12/2007, -10/+53"(FWIW, I'm an agnostic from a Jewish/Protestant/Baha'i background, who is a big fan of religion as social structure)"
Did you add that to avoid offending the fundamentalists? - mekongcola, on 10/12/2007, -9/+51[“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.]
One of the stupidest and scariest thing I've read in a long time. An order to suspend "belief" in scientific fact?!? This is draconian in nature, I’m gob smacked...
This is a huge step back in logical thinking. I hope that the entire scientific community and rational thinking people everywhere don't allow this to stand... - smellinator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42@ fleury29:
As a Christian and a logician, I have to say that your argument doesn't hold water.
>>Now at one point there must have been a time when nothing existed.
You offer no evidence for this assertion. In fact, what we know now about the concept of time (and what we do not yet know) really contradicts this assertion. Case in point: if nothing existed, then time itself did not exist. Therefore, there could not have been a "Time when nothing existed"?
>>And since you cannot get something from nothing, there must have been an intelligent being that always existed, and will always exist.
You have three leaps in this one, with no supporting evidence. First, you say that you cannot get something from nothing. Yet you have already stated that everything "has the ability to exist or not exist". So either "everything always is in one state of existence (i.e. ALWAYS exists or NEVER exists)" or it can change states of existence (can change from Non-existence to existence and/or vice versa). If the first is true (things that existed ALWAYS existed), then your earlier statement (there must have been a time when nothing existed) must be false. And if it's possible that the state of existence can change for a particular item (to exist, having never existed before), then it sure sounds like you can get something from nothing. Especially considering that you stated that there was a time when nothing existed, and now there's a time when something exists.
Second leap is that "there must have been an intelligent being that always existed, and will always exist." This contradicts your statement that there was a time when nothing existed. And it contradicts your statement that things can exist or not exist. Third leap, you've tossed in "intelligent", with absolutely no supporting evidence.
Time to go back to school. Study some of the "Proofs of God's existence" and their counter-arguments. They are quite interesting. - LePoissonDeNoel, on 10/12/2007, -11/+48It's not a matter of liberal vs. conservative, but thank you for attempting to polarize and misconstrue the argument as such. What it is a matter of is, on one side, real and solid geological science: decades of research and thought, formulation of theories and evidence to support them, and debates within the scientific community; and on the other side, a half-assed attempt at taking a 5000 year-old myth written with a child's capacity for abstract thought and passing it off as an equally valid explanation.
The Great Flood story is not science and furthermore is not even remotely grounded in reality, and to have the government back it up in order to be politically correct is absolutely ***** insane. - Hazardc, on 10/12/2007, -10/+45Bush jr becoming president was enough to sway me from agnostic to full out athiest.
- CocaCola88, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41see what happens when dumbasses control a country ->
- pensivewombat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Instead of saying "offending" it would have been more correct of them to say "losing millions of dollars in political donations." Nobody is afraid of offending people, but they go to insane lengths to avoid losing money.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+41(Tries to bring back Scientology jokes)
I thought Xenu created the Grand Canyon. - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33That's democracy for you. When there's a choice between doing what's right and doing what's popular- you do what's popular, so you don't upset the voters.
Millions of creationists get upset by science? Hide the science.
Millions of rednecks want to nuke Iraq? Send in the boys. - Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -25/+52Some folks never really grow up,
and need fairy tales to help them sleep.
I'm Serious. Mentally, on a certain cognitive level, they
never really reach the 'adult' level of critical thinking and
rationally processing info.
Then again, aspects of this society do seem to infantilize
people....low-wattage folks buy more of their crap, I guess. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35We all know Chuck Norris created the Grand Canyon. President Bush? Roundhouse kick coming!
- triple110, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32@xealinc
Yeah! Who cares about the facts, as long as I'm right.
/sarcasm
There is nothing wrong with having different views as long as it doesn't step on the toes of the facts. While "truth" is based on perspective and belief, "fact" is constant. - Plotinus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30@Xealinc
I have no problem with an alternative viewpoint. What I have an issue with is the belief going around these days, that *any* half-arsed view is as valid as any other *regardless* of the evidence. The Old Testament contradicts itself, is vicious, the god in it has the morals and self-restraint of a spoiled five year old so taking it as the "literal" truth shows only that the reader is at best semi-literate. To use it as the reason for overriding geological evidence is, ... well let's just say - anyone with anti-american sentiment out there is laughing their arses off as you lead the technological charge into the thirteenth century - well done. - mstar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32@ fleury29
>> Now at one point there must have been a time when nothing existed. And since you cannot get something from nothing, there must have been an intelligent being that always existed,
And so where exactly did this intelligent complicated being come from? As you said you cannot get something from nothing??? I would say that just because we have not been able to determine the exact nature of the universe doesn't mean you fill the gap in knowledge with "magic". That's way too convenient. They used to say that about solar eclipses back in the day...
>> If I believe that there is no God and live my life accordingly, and I am wrong what did I lose? EVERYTHING
Sure. If you believe in God solely to cover your ass then how real or genuine is such a belief? Isn't believing "just in case" the worst reason. Are you so frightened that the magical all seeing thing in the clouds will get you... ? - qsucvatz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29To have a world view such that the entire universe was created when the Sumerians began making glue; and the rest of the world was in the throes of the agricultural revolution, is wrong.
Unless you want your kids wasting their time discussing the alternative view of the Invisible Pink Rhinoceros, they should stick to debating the evidence at hand. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24@stoof: Imagine having a drunk guy going around in a bar, randomly punching people in the face. Then, when he gets beat up by the people he's punched, he complains "why is everybody always picking on me?".
That aggressive drunk is the US evangelical movement.
Prayer in school, opposition to evolution, opposition to cosmology, dissolution of the separation of state and church, the bogus "war on christmas", godhatesfags, opposition to abortion, opposition to stem cell research, the ongoing attempt at gaining control of the US army, pushing creationism, discrimination against atheists and agnostics, opposition to gay marriage, opposition even to the _existence_ of gays, opposition to contraception, opposition to environmental protection.... the list of issues in which the evangelicals take entirely bible-based positions and piss all over the views of non-evangelicals is seemingly endless.
Then, when the evangelical movement gets beat up over the utter baselessness of their positions or the hypocrisy of its leaders, it complains about "anti-christian persecution". - zeroSignal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21This cannot be true.. can it?
I mean.. this is just far too out there.. The limits some people impose on themselves are almost impossible to grasp..
Seriously.. wtf? - jcaino, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27wow.
im religious...but i believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with science...and this is just ridiculous - Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24"Obviously, any argument with some basis in faith is unwinable, but what's the harm in letting people read about it and talk about the possibilities? Much science is based on best conjecture anyway, so why not let opposing views be represented?"
That's the kind of thinking that started the Crusades. Too often, scientific FACT is thrown out because it does not jibe with "faith". Christians have a habit of killing those who don't agree with them. - jtorkbob, on 10/12/2007, -26/+42Here's the key phrase: "In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists".
These kind of decisions have nothing to do with the Bush administration; they've been happening for years because every decision maker is afraid of offending _anyone_. This is equivalent to the common theme of refusing to allow nativity scenes. In some places, legal counsel has said that the only way to for a public institution to celebrate Christmas without offending anyone is to display other religions' paraphernalia alongside the Christmas ones. That's complicated; so now we have 'winter break' at school and 'happy holidays' at the mall.
Why can't we just offend everyone equally?
(FWIW, I'm an agnostic from a Jewish/Protestant/Baha'i background, who is a big fan of religion as social structure) - flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -21/+36its not rediculous its *****' retarded!
- cybortrip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17it's sad that ***** like this never makes a splash (pun intended) in the major media outlets. THIS IS REAL NEWS. instead, we hear about trailer trash brittney spears on a daily basis. i feel sorry for the next prez who has to clean up after this idiot's mess...
- ktklown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Clearly this isn't the whole story -- if you go to the Grand Canyon's official web site run by the National Park Service (http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old ) you find this in the FAQ:
How old is the Canyon?
That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young. (top of page)
Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?
No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada. (top of page) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"What's with this war on Christianity? What did we ever do? I'd like to see a Digg where not every topic is "hey, let's rip on the newest most popular Christian leader"."
I'd really like to see some evidence that Christians are being attacked by virtue of their Christianity and not because of their latest regressive acts which they are attempting to inflict upon the rest of the country.
And you should probably know - places like Digg allow people to vent about things that they can't normally express when they aren't anonymous. Christians complain about their faith being oppressed but they themselves are some of the biggest perpetuators of prejudice and self-righteousness towards their fellow countrymen. So it should come as no surprise when lots of people on Digg criticize Christianity when doing so in the real world would get them treated like a second-class citizen. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14We're not anti-christians.
We're pro-science.
However, while it's perfectly possible to be pro-science and a christian, it is impossible to be both pro-science and a *literalist* christian, and most evangelicals are. - highgeere, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16The reason we say 'winter break' and 'happy holidays' is because it isn't reasonable to assume that every person that gets a break during december or every person you greet celebrates a particular holiday. Would it seem reasonable to call it 'Chanukah Break' and say 'Merry Kwanzaa' to everyone you see in december?
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I don't even wanna know where you hid the boat.
- professorchaos1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18To illustrate how irrelevant the Bible can be in this day and age I offer this link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
I especially like this jab:
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? - Logal, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18FTFA:
“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,”
and Thunder is just angels bowling.
Anyone got any more? - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@sloof70
"There are two theories: one that a slow process of randomization created our universe, and the other that a divine Creator swept in and did it quickly."
Bzzzzzz. Sorry, the correct answer was "Evolution is a scientific theory, while intelligent design, by its nature of non-falsifiability, cannot qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the word." But don't feel too bad, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
"You can doubt the belief of intelligent design, but there's no reason to bash it every chance you get."
The phrase "intelligent design" is a recent creation with the sole purpose of masquerading creationism as actual science. It's an affront to science, as it willfully misuses the term "theory", and it's an affront to religion, as it insinuates that creationism would somehow be "better" if it were scientific enough. Based on that, I'll bash intelligent design every chance I get, thankyouverymuch. - pgoowy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Just to point out that there are plenty of Christians who don't support Bush and can see through his political agenda.
- mbateman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I totally agree that freedom of speech should always prevail but we are talking about a religious book being sold in a National Park which is funded with federal tax dollars. I'm not advocating that the book be banned from publication, just that it has no place in a federal facility. If creationists want to sit outside of the NPS office and sell their book to suckers willing to listen, I'm OK with that but for this book to be given space in a government facility is just wrong.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 490 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is