What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
249 Comments
- slvrtgr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+67lol
reminds me of the time when i was at this church (i'm Christian) listening to this speaker trying to debunk evolutionists
it went something like this:
"many evolutionists use radioactive dating to get the age of things, but this is not very accurate. for example, in 19something an earthquake happened and a new cliff was formed. when scientists took the age of the cliff by using radioactive dating they found it was something millions of years old, but the cliff had formed only in the past few years."
so i raised my hand and told the speaker that the scientists were measuring the age of the rock, not the cliff, and there was one of those really long awkward silences. then the speaker was like "oh, you're just a little kid you don't know much stuff about science yet." afterwards the pastor got mad at me for being rude and criticizing the speaker about something that i had "no clue about."
...i was smarter than that speaker at 10 years old
and i don't go to that church anymore - curtvdh, on 10/11/2007, -25/+75Creationist Lies == Redundant.
- AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -9/+59This doesn't have to do with the fact that I "don't believe it." This has nothing to do with "belief" at all, and everything to do with *facts*. Tom McVeety is not just stating beliefs, but telling bald-faced lies. Even worse, they're lies about a subject matter which is poorly understood by many, and the lies are tailored to be exactly what these people *want* to be true. That's the most insidious type of lie, and saying nothing is exactly the type of behavior that will allow this misinformation to burrow deeper into the collective consciousness of the uneducated masses.
- whataboutdave, on 10/11/2007, -16/+59Miller-Urey is probably the most misunderstood experiment in modern science. I can't believe people are still dumb enough to fall for stuff like this.
- gumby05, on 10/11/2007, -13/+45I live near Evansville.
They're all retarded there - FVThinker, on 10/11/2007, -9/+30We get worked up because people are trying to retard our educational system and make public policy on mythology . . . that's why we get worked up.
- yellowsnowcone, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24Those who believe in Evolution need to have their heads examined. Everyone knows humans were planted on Earth by an ancient alien civilization.
- thrallie, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26Please, don't go to church anymore at all. When religious leaders insult a young person because he has evidence and is smarter than him that is just despicable.
- rancorr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21God did it.
- DTJunkie07, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21Thank god for science.
- TheShad0w, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18I agree evolution doesn't address the origins of life. It's not supposed to. Its supposed to represent how life has adapted and changed over millions of years.
- tamarind, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15"According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moon’s surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year. How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?"
They just assume the rate is and has always been linear. How unimaginative. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -14/+26You can't underestimate the stupidity of the average creationist!
- FVThinker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein in a letter when asked, specifically, to clarify his position on the supernatural/god - darienphoenix, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18The problem isn't the editorial itself - people have been writing lies in print since we invented paper. The problem is that the editorial is representative of how many creationists, particularly, young-earth creationists, think. That is, they twist facts, make blatant misrepresentations, and pick-and-choose data to suit their agenda. The fact that their arguments would be laughed at by a high-school maths student doesn't help matters, either.
- Gaki, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Have you ever been a scientist? Have a biology degree or two or know someone who does?
I've dealt with short lived species for at least half my life and you can literally watch evolution happening in response to changes in environment. Not "dividing cells" but living, breathing organisms changing to be more effective in dealing with their environment. Rabbits, rats, insects of all sorts, birds, etc. It's been observed in dozens upon dozens of short-lived species. We can't see it as readily with elephants, of course, but that's only because they live so long.
Besides, your analogy is really bad. A painting is a poor example because there is no known "natural" example of a painting - every single last painting in the history of the Earth has been created by an intelligent painter. It is a PRODUCT. Living organisms, on the other hand, are not products. There are billions upon billions of examples of living creatures that have ZERO to do with man. Get it? One NEEDS man to be created. The other has been created and creating long since man ever existed and will continue to do so long after man exits. You can't even conceivably compare the two.
Life needs six minutes in the back of a Buick. That's not art and doesn't require an artist, just two people *****. - Gaki, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14You want an example of evolution from single cell to a living, breathing organism? You realize that you are asking for something that took BILLIONS of years to happen, in the blink of an eye, and if it doesn't get produced YOU get to decide that there isn't enough proof? That's crazy.
Here's something to mull over - I want you to introduce me to God. If you can't and God doesn't appear tonight by my bed, then he doesn't exist.
Why do you assume that the burden of proof has to lie with evolutionists? In a direct comparison, evolution has SOME evidence (very convincing and accurate in the short term) while Creationism has NO EVIDENCE. If anything, the burden of proof should lie with the people who have zero leg to stand on.
In other words, cough up God. - Gaki, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14And religion once thought the Earth was the center of the solar system. The priests felt this so strongly that they burned to death several people who, using the first telescopes, saw that this could not possibly be the case. Science took what was once unknown and de-mystified it. Now, the notion that the Earth is the center of the solar system is a laughable one (it wasn't back then, obviously). So what if scientists don't know the origin of gravity RIGHT NOW. That's not a failure of science as a whole because the body of knowledge that science has revealed just in the last 100 years would be the amount of 2 million bibles. Gravity is just a matter of time.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10A comment on the page itself sums this up:
"# Redrefractor Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Wow. Just…Wow. And all these years I actually believed in all the guff that Dawkins, Sagan, Gould and–dare I say it?–Plait were handing out. I actually believed in an an enormous, OLD Universe, with complexity and chaos, fusion and speciation, trilobites and globular clusters, and a process that diligently, slowly worked to answer the important questions through investigation and experimentation, promising no revelations, no final “aha” that would resolve all issues, only the reward of the quest for knowledge.
And now I see the Light. I understand. The Universe really IS six thousand years old, mankind and all the other species on our planet were created practically simultaneously by an act of will on the part of a Creator who delivers predestination and free will in equal measure, and all I really need to understand or know is contained in a book. The book must be right, because it says it is. It’s a best-seller, after all.
Well, THAT makes things much easier, doesn’t it? No worries, Mate!
P.S. The thunder outside my cave entrance scares me, and it is SO dark…
" - Immij, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Yeah, go look in science text books. They show that a pair of hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom can make water without any disclaimers or contrary evidence. Don't believe me? Go and see for yourself.
- ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17You fail at science. Time to get education and stop listening to fairy tales.
- nicksauce, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060202_lab_evo.html
PS evolution has ***** all to do with abiogenesis. - Gaki, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14This is a ridiculous request.
You ask for what happened in BILLIONS of years to happen right in front of your eyes, instantly, to your satisfaction. If it doesn't, you don't consider it to be true. Can't produce? Oh... then evolution must be suspect. You can't engineer evolution because evolution occurs as a reaction to the environment. What suits the environment stays, what doesn't, dies. You can't simulate all the vastly changing conditions that have occurred since the planet started cooling in a lab.
Here's something to chew on. Religion of any sort is based almost solely on faith. There is no proof of God, merely "evidence" than can be interpreted as such. Believers must take it on faith that he actually exists. It is remarkable, then, that these same people who live their lives based on a belief system they cannot prove and things they cannot see ... question evolution because they cannnot "see" it happening in real time in front of their faces. I find that patently hypocritical. "We'll believe in this invisible God that no one can see and no one can prove, but evolution, which we can prove in the short term and can actually see with our own eyes, we won't believe because we can't see it in the long term." That's just crazy.
Besides ... you've brought the argument back to my main point. Just because we don't know how life sprang from rock at this moment in time doesn't mean that we will NEVER know. There are plenty of things that were abject mysteries a century ago that are commonplace now. You act as if certain mysteries are forever beyond the bounds of science, but that is your own prejudices talking - you don't WANT science to find out the origins and so you limit science in your head to being unable to answer those questions.
The reality is that science is asking questions and it tends to get answers. Not always the answers people want or expect, but it gets them. Theologians, on the other hand, think they ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWERS, and so have stopped asking questions centuries ago. Why ask how when you already know that "God did it". Why ask why when you have a cadre of priests telling you "for your own good." Theologians are terrified of science because it finds the actual answers, instead of what they believe the answers are. Seeing as their belief system is based on those assumptions and, in a lot of cases, billions of dollars of wealth are based on the belief system, it is pretty easy to see why they are upset that science tends to prove things wrong.
Another thought ... pick up some soil. In your hand you have TRILLIONS of microorganisms. That's life in what most people would call a "thing". You can't see it, can't touch it, can't verify it's existence without a microscope, but it is there. You quite sure that at some point there was ZERO life and that life just sprang up? Bacteria can life in volcanic trenches no other living thing can tolerate. Your body is teeming with micro-organisms that you would die without. - nicksauce, on 10/11/2007, -16/+25"New facts could disprove evolution"
Jesus tapdancin' christ, already into the title, and they're spouting lies. Evolution is observed scientific fact, and as such cannot be disproven. - NoSuchAgency, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12"They just assume the rate is and has always been linear. How unimaginative."
You mean "how uneducated". These are people who wallow and revel in their own ignorance. They've read one book (plus a few other books about how great that book is). - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Stop all this creationist bashing!! They have plenty of well qualified scienticians backing their theories.
- Matri, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15You, my friend, get a digg up from me. You have demonstrated the one trait all creationists lack: logic.
- JAK2112, on 10/11/2007, -9/+18It amazes me how people can make up information that is such blatent *****, yet still think that they are right.
For example: the moon was ALMOST definitely formed by a giant impact of a mars-sized body with earth. So i don't know what he is implying when he says "How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?". And the stuff about the Miller test is just SOOOOO wrong, i almost want to cry - Otto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Miller's experiment was, and still is, legitimate. You just don't understand the damn point of it.
Miller-Urey is not saying that "this is how life formed". What it's saying is that it's possible for some of the requirements of life-as-we-know-it (amino acids in particular) to form though non-life processes.
See, on earth, right now, the only way you get amino acids is by life-processes creating them. But you need those to have life-processes in the first place. It's a chicken and egg problem. Miller-Urey showed that you could get the necessary bits before you got the actual life. But that's ALL it showed, and even then it was mainly a first step, not the end result.
Miller-Urey does not show how life began, it shows that it is *possible* for life to begin without having life already. - brokencode, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13I don't even want to read that now. I just know my IQ will drop.
- MacEnvy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Why don't you just read the ***** article that's linked in the headline? That's what he does.
- sfanetti, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Actually at the rate they quoted, 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been about 100,000 miles closer. Still about 100,000 miles above the tallest mountains.
In any case, the moon was formed when a Mars sized planet smacked into early earth - so in a way, the moon actually was scraping mountains ( though very quickly while everything was molten ) - sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13"It is not my intent to start an argument or debate; please save your hate mail for someone else."
"I realize every time I voice an opinion people look at me like I'm retarded so this is a closed opinion piece in an effort for me to feel better about myself ." - Qeveren, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Well, even if it -were- a constant rate of recession, that 'how many billions of years' works out to around fifteen billion of them, longer than the universe has been around. XD
- Hayaemsay, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11You're the sort of person who speaks to their toaster.
- WoollyMittens, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11The problem with creationists is that they try to shape the universe to suit their holy book. Trying to get a science book to suit the universe is a lot more sensible. "God made it" should be the LAST assumption in your reasoning, instead of the FIRST.
- BadAstronomer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12I've had server problems at Bad Astronomy all day which was the problem; the site has survived numerous Diggs (and Slashdots and Farks, gloat gloat) in the past.
- Septimus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Yay another spaz for the block list.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7It's the first link in the article... O_o
- totiM, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10*sigh* The article is from my hometown newspaper. When I was in high school there was an editorial about the writer's next door neighbor, and how nice he was to the poor kids down the street who (he claims) we all know will eventually grow up to be criminals, garbage men, or plumbers. If only they could see me now ... My family was Italian, and we were constantly under suspicion of having affiliations with the mafia - cops even sat outside of our home for a few years. There is little openness to anything outside of what they believe. Evansville is just another closed off midwestern "city" that is ignorant to the rest of the U.S. and the world, and I believe it serves as a good example of what is wrong with the United States today. At least that is how it was when I left in 2002, but it seems little has changed.
- threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12It's fun to see shallow minded red necks claim everyone else is insecure because they are talking about a debate where one side just used lies.
What if I said the bible never was written, that it was made up by a very early book publisher in the hopes that it would catch on and make money. Would you get into a debate about it's truth? - darthmdh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8This is why I prefer to listen to people who have actually done some R&A on the topic, then speak out of their own experience. Hope your new church does better vetting of their guest speakers. There's a lot of idiots out there, most of whom have never gone to a seminary for any length of time let alone got a theology degree, who spout all kinds of nonsense. It's okay, the bible says these people will come. Just laugh at them and let it go - maybe bring up with your own church elders the fallacies in what they said so the congregation can be edified.
- ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"creation-evolution issue"
"It addresses a longstanding desire by the public for a comprehensive and understandable comparison of the two main explanations for how everything began"
No, evolution does not address the origin of life. buried as crap - CrackIsWack, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Because our forefathers being a man made from clay and a woman made from his rib who ate an apple from a talking snake ISN'T dumb and irrational? Please.
- ComradeCreed, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13... you don't *get* science, do you?
- nicksauce, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13void theBibleIsRight(){
GodWroteIt();
}
void GodWroteIt(){
theBibleIsRight();
}
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6You're a moron who knows nothing of history. The geocentric theory dates back to ancient Greece, and held sway until the Enlightenment, you tool. It took scientists like Galileo and Copernicus to demonstrate this, and look what happened to Galileo at the hands of the church. God, I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond to such an idiotic statement.
- CrackIsWack, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Comment buried for perfectly capturing the epitome of the ignorant religious mindset.
- Gaki, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10The difference, though, is that evolution has been observed in action. It happens.
Creationism, on the other hand, is just one among many thousands of possible "creation myths" that could conceivably be correct. It has no more validity that some kid concocting a story that he makes up on the spot. Turtle as the base of the Earth? Has just as much proof as Creationism. Odin creating the world out of his horses' *****? Just as much proof.
We bend over backwards in order to accomodate Christians in North America, but their theory of how things started has literally ZERO proof, certainly no more than any other crackpot theory one could come up with. Why should we give any more credence to THEIR theory than anyone elses? Why do the priests of said religion claim some special expertise in creation when their expertise really lies with the book itself, not life incarnate. They have no more expertise in HOW or WHY creation began than you or I. - WoollyMittens, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9It's not the science, it's the method creationists use that is bogus. It's pointless to try and explain everything in the universe to suit your book. It should be the other way around.
A creationist can simply "win" any discussion by saying that God did it anyway. -
Show 51 - 100 of 249 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is