What is Digg?302 Comments
- Linkage155, on 10/12/2007, -10/+174Here's one for ya!
"There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live." - Kbennett, on 10/12/2007, -18/+130Chuck Norris should stick to simple things like roundhouse kicking people through walls and avoid complicated things like thinking and writing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+102Hey, if Chuck says so, then it's damn true!
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+88Chuck Norris uses himself as evidence that men don't evolve.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+87Wait a minute, so all those facts weren't true?
I feel so empty now. - iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -3/+70Of course it's true.
When God said "Let there be light!", Chuck Norris said "Say please." - Klarth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+63Charizard evolves into Chuck Norris at level 101.
- skoles, on 10/12/2007, -6/+61Chuck Norris says evolution is ‘Not Real. It Is Not The Way We Got Here’
God sits in the back and nervously nods his head in agreement because he knows better than to disagree w/Chuck Norris. - hotpepper, on 10/12/2007, -10/+65NASCAR comes from apes.
- raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -5/+60Actually Mr T. and Chuck Norris decided to spar, they travelled to the only safe place in the Universe, the beginning of time. They bowed to each other and Chuck launched in with a roundhouse kick. Mr. T blocked it, and the resulting pressure wave is commonly called the Big Bang.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -4/+58Steven Hawking?
- procdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+55Every time Chuck Norris diggs a story, it makes the front page...instantly.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+59I always used to vehemently support evolution. But if Chuck Norris is against it, I'm not gonna stand in his way!
- vp0ng, on 10/12/2007, -13/+57The universe was REALLY created when Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked GOD in the stomach causing him to vomit for seven days and seven nights.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43No, actually, creationism is not a theory. A theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world". Note the phrase "well-substantiated".
Creationism is totally unsubstantiated, and untestable.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Atheory&btnG=Google+Search
Note: "A theory is generally accepted as valid due to having survived repeated testing." - dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -24/+60Just because he thinks dinosaurs never existed, or did so around 4,000 years ago, means nothing....he may not have a brain, but he has karate kicks! Right?....
Ah crap, stupidity defeats everything ;( - n1qaw, on 10/12/2007, -10/+45Chuck will kick your ass if you argue with him on this...believe it.
- AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37"No, NASCAR comes from moonshine runners trying to outrun the police during the prohibition--that's a fact."
So, to outrun the police they just ran in circles? And i thought today's police were stupid. - bmh129, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37No, NASCAR comes from moonshine runners trying to outrun the police during the prohibition--that's a fact.
- Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33most actors are not qualified to speak about... well anything. most go to school for acting only, and thats all they have been trained in. the problem is they are so used to having people listen to what they are saying because they are actors, that they think anything they say is sm4rt. hence the joke that is scientology.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36Yeah I think it's high time we move on to the McGuyver ones.
For McGuyver is the only man that can defeat chuck Norris. - TheInfidel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34So, you believe in the Talking Snake Theory, eh?
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Uh, no. You're wrong. Creationism is not a theory. There is no evidence to support it. There is no way to test it. Its an idea, and a very bad one, at that.
- simplicio, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32That's it? Just, I agree? So your explanation for the complexity of life on Earth is to invoke a yet even MORE complex entity (God) as the cause?! That explains absolutely nothing! God is outside of space and time you say? Alrightee then. That clears everything up. I hope one day you will have the courage to leave behind childish superstitions and join us in the reality-based community which doesn't require rejecting science in order to justify irrational beliefs.
Please see: "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
www.richarddawkins.net - trstar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24We need Bruce Lee, now more than ever.
- CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35Can I still give out the Darwin Awards, Chuck?
- Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+38That does it. Chuck Norris is no longer cool. Any proposals on the new protagonists for the former Chuck Norris jokes?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31Jack Bauer
http://www.notrly.com/jackbauer/index.php?topthirty - tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24No wonder everyone makes fun of him.
- osirisothedead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@vandread
In a logical debate, the onus is on the party making the claim for the positive, not negative. Otherwise, things get slightly ridiculous. After all, you can't prove there's no such thing as invisible pink unicorns, can you? - kolop1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22 I didn't know Chuck Norris had an opinion that is relevant to my life
- erkokite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Because we all know Chuck Norris has PhD in biology.[sarcasm]
- Daveecee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Uh, yes, the gene's mutation is random. The survival of that mutation is not.
- DooDooFace, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Exactly, I realize my error and am now a creationist.
- ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Before he did all the cheesy movies, he was a really accomplished martial artist. I think he has some admirable talent and qualities (acting skill not being one of them), but it's okay to say he's brilliant in one area and an idiot in another.
Jon Stewart probably couldn't do nuclear physics. Barack Obama won't win any Olympic weightlifting medals. And Chuck Norris sure isn't an evolutionary biologist. - cattar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18It seems that he wants people to take him seriously, but he has to mention several times in his article that not only is he a action movie star, but also has also been a karate champion several times...
By the way, Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer. Too bad he never cries. Ever. - Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Wish he had gone strait to the column, I had to click through 3 or 4 blogs quoting other blogs to get to the actual article.
- PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Aw, crap. He is no longer awesome. :-(
- CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Don't give him any ideas!
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23bury I am an idiot
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14You don't apologize to Chuck Norris.
You just die. - o0joshua0o, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Can you prove god doesn't exist? No, you have no evidence that says he does, but you also can't prove he doesn't. So since you can't prove he doesn't exist and just claim he doesn't why should anyone believe you over the person who just claims that he does exist with the same lack of evidence to prove it that you have?"
This same argument could be used to argue in favor of Santa Claus' existence. - Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19uh, he still doesn't.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Replublicans misquote 2001:
Al Gore says "I invented the internet".
The real quote was quite a bit different...like...."invented legislation for the internet...in the 70's" which he did.
Quite quoting memes. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@jarland
"Now, on the issue of creationism not being a scientific theory, I have to repectfully disagree. My reason being that creationism does have evidence. Now notice I said evidence, not proof."
False. not evidence in the scientific sense, and since you are making an argument for creationism being a valid scientific theory, clearly you are asserting the presence of scientific evidence. Your assertion is false.
"While a lot of the evidence is actually to speak for the validity of the Bible more so than it is creationism as a whole, there is still a little."
Actually, there is, almost by definition, no "evidence" that speaks for the "validity" of the Bible. That is tantamount to saying there is scientific proof of the existence of a god or gods. nice try to distort the meaning of scientific terms, but, no, this too is false.
"And I would have to agree that the evidence does not push creationism as far scientifically as the evidence for evolution."
That would be because there is zero, no evidence for creationism. And there cannot be - you know why? Because creationism is not based on falsifiable (or verifiable) claims. It presents no hypotheses that can be definitively tested, because it denies the very premise of the scientific method.
"But again, by ruling it out, you're compromising science. A scientist rules nothing out that he cannot disprove. I realize that opens the door for a lot of absolutely insane theories, but so be it. Science is about what you can prove or disprove, no more & no less."
Um, actually you either don't understand the first thing about science, or you are deliberately misleading in your statements. For charitable purposes, I'll assume the former. First of all, creationism hasn't been "ruled out" a priori, it has been examined and found to be lacking in merit. In fact, before evolutionary theory, creationism was the default belief; just as, before we learned the Earth was round, flat-Earthism was the default belief.
At this point, there is enough evidence of the Earth being round, that flat-Earthism does not merit consideration as a scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory, which has a precise meaning in science different than its loose colloquial meaning of "neat idea".
Similarly, there is enough evidence of evolution for it to be designated a scientific "theory", which puts it on the level of gravity and conservation of mass-energy. In fact, evolution is one of the best-documented theories in science.
"I will provide some sources of evidence for creationism if you'll give me a bit to gather them. I can't just pull it out of my hat this fast."
Interesting. You just know it is true, but can't come up with a single bit of evidence.
Clearly, you have started with a conclusion "goddidit", and then you seek "evidence" which backs up your conclusion and dismiss evidence which refutes it. - daveddd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"***** Chuck Norris" - Best sound byte from DodgeBall
- chivas3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Wow, I've heard people who choose not to believe in the conclusions implied by the theory of evolution, but never heard anyone claim the THEORY doesn't exist. That's pretty well documented and not in question.
This dude is even more separated from reality than the headline here suggests. Wow. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@Jagdhund:
"My faith is because of science. This universe and its laws are too complex and perfect to be mere chance."
Just curious: precisely what is the degree of "complexity" and "perfection" you use as a criteria for rejecting a theory of the universe and its laws based on "mere chance"?
This is the kind of meaningless statement that sounds reasonable until you actually try to understand it. In fact, it is a mere rationalisation for your irrational faith. There is no particular degree of order or chaos that could be discovered that would change your belief in a god.
Nothing wrong with believing in the supernatural, just don't try to mis-use science (the study of natural phenomena) to justify it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I'm glad we can now get our real facts and information from a ***** b-movie actor. Because they have the real know-how of the inner-workings of the universe, not scientists who dedicate their lives to figuring out all the little gears and levers that build everything. Yep.
- conwayblue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13You sir are a fool and are talking out of your ass.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 295 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is