The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
psud0- 134 diggs
- digg it
- thegamingguy, on 10/07/2008, -2/+9street smarts meets book smarts
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/07/2008, -1/+8inaccurate. this is scientific proof that ALL evil, in its entirety, is girls.
Not sure how to word that, but you get the point.- flyers126, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1That's not the even the major flaw in this proof; if girls require time AND money then Girls = Time + Money, not Time x Money. In that case Girls = 2 x (Evil)^1/2, a magnitude of Evil greater than previously calculated assuming 0 < Evil < 1.
- OceanSpud, on 10/08/2008, -3/+6this was made by some nerd who had to rationalize why he didnt have a girlfriend
- MMilitia, on 10/08/2008, -1/+13It has to be said:
Older than the Internet.- mikbunn, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1Seriously - look at that strange, non-uniform text. It's as though some confused ape scratched the letters into dirt.
- GamingForever, on 10/08/2008, -1/+6Funny but very old.
- Herostratus, on 10/08/2008, -2/+4I knew it! I always knew it! Deep within my bones I knew that ball n chain was just an evil succubus, but I never had the proof. Thank you Digg!
- Backstab, on 10/08/2008, -1/+1Mathematical proof?
- phroztbyt3, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3super old.. why is this on digg.
- Evilblobs, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3Already stated, but-
OLDER THAN THE ***** INTERNETS - sweeneypng, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1But it could also be interpreted as girls = time + money. Then girls would be 2 * sqrt(evil). Not nearly as clean. Fortunately, in my experience I have found that the amount of money I spend on a girl is proportional to how much time I spend with her, leading me to believe that the girls = time * money approach is more likely.
- manogamez, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1So old the internet had to go back in time in a Delorean to write this so that it can become popular.
- gobbstopp, on 10/08/2008, -3/+2man = dick + brain + war™
dick = brain - 1 oz blood
war™ = dick + dick + blood∞
....uh
...***** it...
man = dick (in some varying degree) - Airforcefalco, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1It's the love of money that is the root of evil, just ask Wall Street.
- shauntacular, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2Didn't need that to tell me, Led Zeppelin told me "Soul of a women was created belooooowwww! yeah!"
- jotate, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2Aside from the obvious oversight that "and" is the grammatical equivalent of plus (+), not times (*), this proof is missing one piece. In the final step, girls are equal to plus or minus evil. Extrapolated along side Schrodinger's cat, you could even go as far as to say that girls are both evil and anti-evil at the same time. But you never know for sure.
Until you find one dead in a box. - kenrayd, on 10/08/2008, -5/+1That the same science that believes in higher complexity evolution.
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/08/2008, -0/+7"Belief" is irrelevant - all that matters is what has evidence and can be shown. The evidence is what built, and continues to build, the Theory of Evolution. Your mythology and your "belief" in it, as usual, have no bearing on reality.
- kenrayd, on 10/08/2008, -7/+1The real mythology is evolution theory which misapplies evidence as much as the image above misapplies mathematics and tries to make up for the glaring hoax by covering it with intellectual gymnastics.
On the other hand, creation reality has the observable proof that it was created through it's innate built-in artwork as demonstrated by the fact that people get enjoyment from it everyday just by looking at - nothing related to survival instinct whatsoever.- ApokalypseNow, on 10/08/2008, -0/+8Learn to use the reply buttons.
You, who admittedly do not understand science, are still attempting to speak to how it operates. As usual, you completely misunderstand what it is to be a scientific theory. There are no "intellectual gymnastics" involved if you actually have some basic knowledge in the applicable areas.
Creationism, on the other hand, has no objective, empirical evidence. Again, your appeals to aesthetics are completely without value. - kenrayd, on 10/09/2008, -3/+1It is my good fortune to observe the world from a Biblical science advantage because it is so much more rational than your atheist biased, peer-pressured science view which cannot acknowledge what your own eyes see every time you view natural wonders.
You would not be speaking of natural wonders if they were not formed to be in such a state that you would call them wonders. You use the same word for man-made marvels with the very same definition.
You admit that man is moved by aesthetics over natural wonders. As usual, you are silent as far as offering any explanation from your atheist science expertise, so your only answer is to resort to dishonesty by denying the value of the logic. - ApokalypseNow, on 10/09/2008, -0/+5"...Biblical science..."
Oxymoron.
"...so much more rational than your atheist biased, peer-pressured science view..."
As usual, you blatantly misunderstand science. Including religion would be bias, not the other way around, as no religion has any evidence for its claims.
Further, you again misunderstand the peer review process. In peer review, you have to be able to defend your ideas against peers who may not want to believe as you do - you have to be prepared to convince them anyways, and that's possible to do in science because it is based on REASON and EVIDENCE, which means you have to be ready to reject that which you may hold to be true when you discover evidence to suggest that it isn't. Religions, on the other hand, already assume they are correct with no evidence and are both unwilling and unable to admit otherwise, as you demonstrate every day.
"...which cannot acknowledge what your own eyes see every time you view natural wonders."
I acknowledge that there exist things in nature that I find aesthetically pleasing - I recognize, however, that aesthetics have no bearing on objective reality. That a person finds something "pretty" has no value, is indicative of nothing other than subjective experience.
"You would not be speaking of natural wonders if they were not formed to be in such a state that you would call them wonders."
Just another subjective assertion.
"As usual, you are silent as far as offering any explanation from your atheist science expertise..."
As stated many times, aesthetic value is subjective - what one may find pleasing, another may find ugly. What may be extraordinary to one may be every-day ordinary to another. However and whatever you appreciate for it's aesthetics is of no value, however, and is not indicative of anything - especially the supernatural connotations you are fond of applying to everything that already has a natural explanation.
"...so your only answer is to resort to dishonesty by denying the value of the logic."
With your history of non-sequiturs and your ignorance of formal logic, what makes you think you're in any way qualified to discuss it? Your continual speaking from a position of admitted ignorance - now there's some dishonesty. - ApokalypseNow, on 10/09/2008, -0/+4Addendum:
"...so much more rational..."
A world-view based on unevidenced assumptions like those laid out in your mythology is in no way "rational".
- ApokalypseNow, on 10/08/2008, -0/+8Learn to use the reply buttons.
- Mnementh2230, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Evolution isn't about going to higher complexity. Yes, it happens sometimes, and yes we have proof (look at that forminifera phylum). HOWEVER, evolution is not a goal-oriented process, so higher complexity isn't necessary.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is