Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
150th Anniversary of Theory of Evolution
wired.com — 1858: The Linnaean Society of London listens to the reading of a composite paper on how natural selection accounts for the evolution and variety of species. The authors are Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Modern biology is born.
Burento- 1279 diggs
- digg it
- skewl, on 07/01/2008, -3/+11This Tuesday in the Golden Gate Park will mark the 150th anniversary of the firing
of this first shot.- CrazedLeper, on 07/01/2008, -49/+2How ironic that the anniversary is still deemed worth observance considering that this "first shot" missed so wildly. This crackpot theory would never have gotten off the ground if Darwin could have seen inside the cell. It might have humbled him enough to abandon his RACIST *theory* but in the years since, you've all become much to arrogant to admit the truth.
Neverlution is totally impossible. It only works if you have a system already in place and you *want* to view that system solely through the cone of uncertainty.- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -3/+38Neither Darwin nor Evolution are racist:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html
Everything inside the cell supports the Theory of Evolution - DNA is the best indicator yet for common descent with modification.
You fail at understanding what constitutes a Scientific Theory:
http://www.notjustatheory.com
"Neverlution is totally impossible."
Cit+ E. Coli, Nylon-eating bacteria, and the near-complete phylum of life described by the Foraminiferans would like to disagree with you on this. - spongya77, on 07/01/2008, -4/+20Please go back to downloading porn, and don't disturb all the serious people here. Mkay?
- Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -3/+20Do you have any argument based upon fact to offer? For example, can you justify your assertion that the theory of evolution is "racist"? Can you show that evolution is "impossible", as you assert?
- nitsuj, on 07/01/2008, -2/+23"This crackpot theory would never have gotten off the ground if Darwin could have seen inside the cell."
Funny how modern science knows far more about biology than Darwin ever did and we've only ever found increasing support for the theory of evolution i.e. genetics.
"It only works if you have a system already in place and you *want* to study that system solely through the cone of uncertainty."
Cone of uncertainty? Science is not 'uncertain' of evolution. Evolution happens. FACT. The theory of evolution is the framework to explain how it happens.
The fact that you highlight *theory* in your post points to your continued ignorance of what a scientific theory is. The FACT that this has been pointed out to you several times now points to the FACT that you are an idiot. - UglyBunny, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11"It only works if you have a system already in place and you *want* to view that system solely through the cone of uncertainty."
The same could be said about your god. God only exists if you have a system already in place and you *want* to view that system solely through the cone of uncertainty.
Uncertainty isn't a bad thing. Uncertainty allows for debate, it allows for a reasonable explanation for differing opinions. It gives people a chance to validate their opinions and ideas by showing them to people who may have a critical view.
Here's a clip of Richard Rorty who makes a great point about uncertainty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6qkpPfqJNk&NR=1 - Fordi, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11You may return to Conservapedia now, crackpot.
- cesig, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11Considering no competing theory has the amount of peer-reviewed evidence, and considering there are millions of people like you who are desperately trying and failing to come up with some way to invalidate it, I'd say the crackpots are the ones that choose to remain willfully ignorant of the theory, in favor of others that fit their desired realities better.
And if "It only works if you have a system already in place and you *want* to view that system solely through the cone of uncertainty." isn't the best definition of creationism in the entire world, I don't think there is one.
Only in their case, the "cone of uncertainty" is "God's will" or some other equally vague and improbable equivalent. - greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9Actually since conservapedia has trouble differentiating converative posts from liberal sarcasm http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_can ... they prefers digg where they can at least check our profiles first.
- CrazedLeper, on 07/01/2008, -10/+2You all sound really smart but your theory is really dumb. None of the laws that govern this universe allow life (or anything) to come from nothing (a fact your wild theory leaves unaccounted for). You have no explanation for information-generating systems, and you have not "debunked" irreducible complexity.
Care to tell me which of the four fundamental forces is responsible for sentient intelligence? Self-awareness? Be careful because if you pick any one of them you'll indirectly attribute self-awareness to every non-living entity as well.
Just because you *don't like* "God" as an answer, doesn't mean that it isn't the answer. Until your completely insane theory gets a beginning the invisible hand of a "magic" man in the sky is still on the table. - kmolnar, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8@Leper
Welcome to my block list. Your idiocy seems to know no bounds, and I simply don't have time to waste on your pathetic dribblings of misinformation in the comment thread of a topic you could never understand.
Evolution does not deign to answer the question of how life got started, that is the domain of biogenesis. Evolution is meant to explain how live came to be *varied*, not how it came to be in general. For that question, you need to look into the far less certain (but still promising) theories of scaffolding, phospholipid partitioning, etc
Beyond that, you go on to dismiss something you apparently cannot define with simple broad unsubstantiated claims rather than any kind of actual facts.
You fail. At life. STFU or GTFO. - Fordi, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11CrazedLeper:
"None of the laws that govern this universe allow life (or anything) to come from nothing (a fact your wild theory leaves unaccounted for)."
That's yet to be seen, but there are many plausible abiogenesis hypotheses that point to the possibility.
"You have no explanation for information-generating systems..."
Any self-replicator is an information generating and filtering system: mutation occurs, information is *added* (that is, there are siblings without the mutation in addition to the sibling with the mutation), selection occurs and deleterious information is *removed* (that is, harmful mutations are killed and removed from the information stream).
"and you have not "debunked" irreducible complexity."
Actually, every time a biological mechanism has been deemed irreducably complex, a satisfactory explanation of a genetic path that would allow development of said system with potentially beneficial mutations at each step has been postulated. That may not seem like a 'debunking', but given that the term is 'irreducably complex', the fact that that complexity *can* be reduced means that it is, in fact not irreducable. QED.
"Care to tell me which of the four fundamental forces is responsible for sentient intelligence?"
If I were to have a go at it, I'd say that it's electromagnetism - though, it's a loaded question; without the biochemical structures found in neurons and the support system of a body, the electromagnetic force is only a carrier of impulses. Intelligence emerges from the complexity of the system, not from any individual force.
"Be careful because if you pick any one of them you'll indirectly attribute self-awareness to every non-living entity as well."
Except that structure is more responsible than fundamental forces for sentience. Mind you, if you're using the proper scientific definition of 'sentience', most computer systems are 'sentient'; all it calls for is awareness of self, which most computers are (there's no place like 127.0.0.1). I'm sure you're using the Sci Fi definition, though.
"Just because you *don't like* "God" as an answer, doesn't mean that it isn't the answer."
It's nothing to do with not 'liking' God as the answer. God simply hasn't been necessary for the last few hundred years as an answer, and it's likely that he won't be in the future.
"Until your completely insane theory gets a beginning the invisible hand of a 'magic' man in the sky is still on the table."
For you perhaps. Not the Judeo-Christian God (of Yahweh, Allah, and Jesus fame) of course, seeing as most of his little story book has proven to be either fictional or modified for political purposes. None of the various Hindu creation myths hold up either. Buddhist creation myths fall apart as well.
Essentially, if there is a God, he's unlikely to be your God. - Fordi, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9@greenfyre:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem
Apparently, besides science, they can't do math either. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9Addendum to Fordi's comments:
"You all sound really smart but your theory is really dumb. None of the laws that govern this universe allow life (or anything) to come from nothing (a fact your wild theory leaves unaccounted for)."
Correct - something cannot come from nothing, that would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. However, since you drastically misunderstand the Big Bang (among other things), I can see how you might interpret that as "everything coming from nothing" - it is, in fact, everything coming from everything in a different form, the expansion of the universe and all the matter/energy in it from a singularity in which there existed no dimensions, no time.
Further, as has been said, the Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origins of life - that's a problem for Abiogenesis. Try to keep up.
Also, define life.
"You have no explanation for information-generating systems, and you have not "debunked" irreducible complexity."
Fordi pwned you on this one. Even your own Answers in Genesis website says not attempt to use it in an argument.
"Care to tell me which of the four fundamental forces is responsible for sentient intelligence? Self-awareness?"
Strong Nuclear and Electromagnetic forces in the form of chemical and electrical interactions in the central nervous system. It really is no more complex than that. Non-living things don't have central nervous systems, and not all life has the same number and type of such interactions that we do. Regardless, stop attributing some sublime qualities to intelligence - it is just another adaptation brought about by the evolutionary process that was selected for and retained in this particular hominid species we call humans. As Fordi said, it is the whole system combined that creates the effects we call sentience/self-awareness.
"Just because you *don't like* "God" as an answer, doesn't mean that it isn't the answer."
Again, Fordi pwned you here. It isn't a matter of what we like or don't like, it is a matter of what has evidence for it - your fairy tale has NONE.
"Until your completely insane theory gets a beginning the invisible hand of a "magic" man in the sky is still on the table."
Again, no evidence for your magical sky fairy means that no, he's not on the table. - Dimensio, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8"You all sound really smart but your theory is really dumb. "
Asserting that the theory of evolution is "really dumb" does not demonstrate that the theory of evolution is false. You have demonstrated neither that the theory of evolution is faulty nor that you have any understanding of the theory of evolution at all.
"None of the laws that govern this universe allow life (or anything) to come from nothing (a fact your wild theory leaves unaccounted for)."
No one has ever suggested that life "came from nothing". You are attacking a strawman, which is a logical fallacy. You have been informed before that your characterization of the theory of evolution is incorrect; your repetition of it here is dishonest. Why are you engaging in dishonesty?
" You have no explanation for information-generating systems, and you have not "debunked" irreducible complexity."
Asserting that irreducible complexity has not been debunked does not actually demonstrate that the extensive refutations of "irreducible complexity" are false.
"Care to tell me which of the four fundamental forces is responsible for sentient intelligence? Self-awareness? Be careful because if you pick any one of them you'll indirectly attribute self-awareness to every non-living entity as well."
How, exactly, does your question relate to the validity of the theory of evolution? Can you demonstrate that intelligence is the result of forces other than the four fundamental forces? If so, please do so.
"Just because you *don't like* "God" as an answer, doesn't mean that it isn't the answer."
Please define "God" and demonstrate the existence of this "God". Until and unless you do so, it is irrational and dishonest to assert this "God" as an answer to any question.
" Until your completely insane theory gets a beginning the invisible hand of a "magic" man in the sky is still on the table."'
Your assertion that the theory of evolution is "insane" is unsubstantiated. Additionally, you have not substantiated your previous assertion that the theory of evolution is "racist". Why have you not done this? Was your previous claim a lie?
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -3/+38Neither Darwin nor Evolution are racist:
- jbenson2, on 07/01/2008, -29/+4The theory of evolution:
Hydrogen is a light odorless gas, which, given enough time turns into people.- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -5/+14Given enough time, gravity, pressure, etc. hydrogen turns into nuclear furnaces which form heavier elements. These heavier elements (after being dispersed from the stars in which they were forged) can sometimes combine in interesting ways to create amino acids, which themselves can combine to form chemical replicators. If you have an imperfect replicator, then selection pressures can act upon the differing units in varying amounts.
As such, we are made of materials that were once in stars. Sounds kind of romantic (in a literary sense). - caled, on 07/01/2008, -8/+1You missed out the part about how those stars god damn EXPLODED.
urgh, I've been reading too many cracked articles... - Fordi, on 07/01/2008, -4/+11Incorrect. That's a retardedly simplified combination of two theories: abiogenesis and evolution.
Of course, it's rather typical of a creationist to gloss over scientific matters. - cesig, on 07/01/2008, -4/+9You missed the part about the big bang and the subsequent creation of all matter from the resultant particles.
You also missed the part about stars forming due to gravity and creating the heavier elements beyond hydrogen (helium, carbon, etc.).
You also missed the part about inorganic matter combining to form organic matter in the primordial soup of Earth's prehistoric oceans.
You also missed the part about millions of years of evolution by natural selection, the result of which was us, among many many other things.
Sorry, you fail. - greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6Actually I would have thought you would welcome the thought that inert substances and diffuse gas can turn into intelligent life forms, it may be your only hope.
- jbenson2, on 07/01/2008, -8/+2My we are a bit touchy aren't we?
Especially when someone disses the religion of evolution. - Fordi, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9"Especially when someone disses the religion of evolution."
It's intellectually dishonest to call Evolution a religion. Of course, your sort calls Global Warming a religion, too. Essentially, anything that everybody else sees the logic of, and you're too undereducated to sufficiently understand, is a religion to you. In the case of Evolution, especially if it contradicts your literalist interpretation of the Bible. - Dimensio, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6"Especially when someone disses the religion of evolution."
The theory of evolution is not a religion. Moreover, your statement above bears no resemblance to the theory of evolution, thus you could not have "dissed" it in your statement; instead, you lied about it.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -5/+14Given enough time, gravity, pressure, etc. hydrogen turns into nuclear furnaces which form heavier elements. These heavier elements (after being dispersed from the stars in which they were forged) can sometimes combine in interesting ways to create amino acids, which themselves can combine to form chemical replicators. If you have an imperfect replicator, then selection pressures can act upon the differing units in varying amounts.
- Equinox2012, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3I think I will celebrate today by naturally selecting a Creationist and pummeling him into primordial ooze. Proving all at once Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest.
- CrazedLeper, on 07/01/2008, -49/+2How ironic that the anniversary is still deemed worth observance considering that this "first shot" missed so wildly. This crackpot theory would never have gotten off the ground if Darwin could have seen inside the cell. It might have humbled him enough to abandon his RACIST *theory* but in the years since, you've all become much to arrogant to admit the truth.
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -3/+68There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." (Origin, 1st. Edition 1859).
When I first read that sentence at the end of Origin I knew Chuck was my man.- BoonTobias, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13ramen
- RealmDown, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12In recursive proof, the theory has been slowly evolving.
- kmolnar, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9As an atheist, I imagine the feelings evoked in me by the above "endless forms most beautiful" quotation must resemble those which theists experience when pawing through Genesis or what-have-you.
This is not because evolution, as theists are wont to suggest, is in any way similar to a religion; it is not. Rather it is because, while they stand in awe of a fairy tale, I stand in awe of the truth, and the courage of a few individuals that helped them to tell it in a world overrun with virulent lies.
- smcgrath, on 07/01/2008, -6/+43Next year is the 150th anniversary of "Origin of Species". I have a copy on my iPhone, pick up your copy today and try to read it before the anniversary arrives. Truly a cultural landmark and a defining moment in human history.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228
or if you'd like the audio version
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/21153- JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -40/+1Too bad most of it is bullcrap that has been debunked by science. Yeah, truly a cultural landmark alright.
- shutaro, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+33ROTFL - Spaza, just when I think you have said the most idiotic thiig that could possibly said, you surprise me with another post. I guess everyone excels at something.
- Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -1/+17Please justify your assertion.
- Coven, on 07/01/2008, -1/+25Dimensio, he wont. He never does. He just spews froth the first thing that comes to his mind, which is usually unfounded crap.
- pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -4/+22*sigh* the evolution deniers and global warming deniers have so much in common.
- JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -9/+1@ Dimensio
"Please justify your assertion."
Many/most of Darwin's original theories about evolution have been proven false. This is not to say that current evolutionary theory is false too. Just commenting about the original Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Note - some of these links are for articles that critique all evolutionary theory, not just Darwin's original work.
http://www.christian-faith.com/html/page/darwinism ...
http://www.adullamfilms.org/DarwinDebunked.html
http://www.gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html
http://evolutiondebunked.blogspot.com - kmolnar, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Actually, Darwin's theory remains uncontested, it is merely incomplete. With the exception of the details like gene flow, gene transfer, etc., Darwin hit the nail squarely on the head.
As a first-attempt, it stands well over the 90% accuracy mark, and that's astounding.
Even if this weren't the case, the bottom line is that modern evolutionary theory would still owe everything in it to Darwin's seminal work. It began the rapid unwinding of nonsense surrounding the question of the origin of species, even if it was not the final word.
The primary benefit of science is, as opposed to religion, it is in a sense "open-source" -- free for examining and expanding and modifying (if incorrect) until the truth is found. In the case of the theory of evolution, it was so well defined right out of the gate that 150 years later, we're basically just polishing it. - SpinozaQ, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5I love those links from Jimmy above here..... Here is a quote from the last one...
"How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?"
I nearly spilled my wine I laughed so hard. - Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Heh. That's our Jimmy!
- Equinox2012, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Jimmy, Darwin's theories don't apply to your family only. You have no branches on your Family Stump.
- danharlow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I didn't know the Guttenberg Library had audiobooks! Thanks for the link!
(Yes, I know how to read, but it's hard to read a book when you go hiking or walking your dog).- Equinox2012, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I didn't know Steve Guttenberg had a library!
- JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -40/+1Too bad most of it is bullcrap that has been debunked by science. Yeah, truly a cultural landmark alright.
- onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -7/+70"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Isn't that the ***** truth. Even Richard Dawkins, if presented with enough evidence of a better theory, would discard Evolution in favor of the new theory. The problem with the creationists is since they don't rely on evidence, there is nothing that can be falsified. I believe darwin said it best...
"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness. "
-CD- JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -39/+6Not true. Most creationists simply don't demand a naturalistic process, cause, and conclusion about aspects of life on this planet...the way that atheistic evolutionists do.
We don't use intellectual blinders. And we don't demand that science ALWAYS point to a natural cause and effect simply to have a conclusion that is falsifiable. One can know things about life without having to falsify it in a lab. Hello?!?
When science legitimately points to a 100% naturalistic answer, no problem. It's nature. When science says that natural could never have statistically caused ALL life on this planet, we creationists simply look elsewhere for the answer. Atheistic evolutionists don't...and DEMAND a naturalistic cause. Shoehorning an otherwise impossible naturalistic process into the conclusion is BAD SCIENCE.- Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -1/+45"And we don't demand that science ALWAYS point to a natural cause and effect simply to have a conclusion that is falsifiable. "
Science requires methodological naturalism. Any methodology that hypothesizes or concludes a supernatural occurrence is not science by definition. If any supernatural events have ever occurred or ever do occur in the future, the scientific method will be unable to fully and meaningfully address them and an alternative, non-scientific, methodolgy will be required to describe them.
Additionally, your association of evolution with atheism is fundamentally dishonest. Why do you engage in dishonesty? - ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+33"When science says that natural could never have statistically caused ALL life on this planet, we creationists simply look elsewhere for the answer."
...and science has never said such a thing.
"Shoehorning an otherwise impossible naturalistic process into the conclusion is BAD SCIENCE."
There's no evidence to suggest a supernatural cause, so there's no reason to go looking for one. - onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -1/+42Spaza - you are the kind of person those quotes were referring to...
- Coven, on 07/01/2008, -1/+25Looks like ol Jimbo is a self fulfilling prophecy...
- vault, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15Jimmy, a lot of people reconcile evolution with their religious/spiritual beliefs. It's not an either/or thing.
- rz8472, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14Oooh, run, the ATHEISTS are coming! (not that that's a bad thing in itself...)
Even though a pathetically low 50% of the nation believes in evolution, and even assuming that all 10-15% people who are atheists believe in it, then 70-80% of "evolutionists" are also theists.
Of course they're probably part of some liberal pansy church like the Unitarians or the United Church of Christ, so they're going to hell anyways. - IPublius, on 07/01/2008, -8/+4@vault - while I do not make the assumption or the statement that all evolutionists are atheists (which they patently are not), I would like to point out that in at least one way it is an either/or thing, and in much the same way that rz8472 pointed, albeit sarcastically.
Evolution and the Bible are fundamentally at odds. One cannot accept both as true at the same time. Before I get attacked, allow me to clarify what I mean by both accepting the Bible and evolution. By accepting the Bible I mean accepting it as true. Not 100% literal, but accepting it as written (literal, metaphorical, using parables, poetry etc.). By evolution, I refer here to the Darwinian theory of evolution that states that all of life can be traced back to a single origin and that this life evolved from lower to higher forms over long periods of time through natural selection. I am not referring to non-speciation forms of evolution where animals, plants, etc. change over time but are still the same animal or plant or whatever type. I am speaking of molecule to man evolution.
Now, Genesis lays out that God created the entire universe in 6 days. Even if one were to assume that these were really long days (ages), it would not fit because God created the plants before the sun and flying animals and water animals before land animals (my understanding of evolution is that it goes water -> land -> air). The idea of age long days here is not supported by the Bible either because of Moses using the Genesis account to justify a seven day week. Seven 24 hour days. There is more, but this should suffice. More could be found by examining the things that Adam and Eve's children were able to do within only a few generations. This would negate the idea of stone and bronze ages.
I bring this up not to argue the creationist side, but to point out that the Bible read at face value says what the creationists say. This obviously is at odds with evolution, and so it becomes an either/or solution for those who follow Biblical teachings.
Not all churches and Christians do. Some allow for very liberal interpretation, and some do more of a pick and choose thing out of the Bible. This is how we get theistic evolutionists. The point that I make though (without casting any aspersion upon where anyone will end up after they die) is that one cannot have the entirety of the Bible and evolution at the same time. Genesis and evolution cannot be reconciled without saying that Genesis doesn't say what it says. If individuals choose to ignore that or not worry about it or simply don't accept that part of the Bible, that is their business. I simply point out that the Bible as a whole and evolution cannot be honestly reconciled.
This point is often missed by both sides and once understood might help everyone to settle down a little and have a real discussion (or not). - vault, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12@publius
It has been debated to Hell and back (pardon the pun), but theistic evolution is an extremely common belief in modern mainstream religious circles.
A lot of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in evolution as well as part or all of the Bible, it's that their interpretation of how literal it's meant to be taken differs. Also don't forget there are other religions besides those three Abrahamic faiths...not every religion uses the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution - Phyraxus, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Jimmy's post reminded me of a thunderf00t video in which venomfangx was telling him to get him out of his scientific bubble. To which thunderf00t retorted, "The bubble I live in is called reality. In reality, science has a track record of success. Indeed, our first-world civilization is just a monument to the intrinsically godless process called science, that you have declared to be so limited. Meanwhile, all religions have a track record of non-achievement for several thousand years."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVWAwNevIJE - Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5@Phyraxus: Thunderf00t is an awesome debater.
- TheCatsPants, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, telepathy, ghosts, etc also don't have a naturalistic explanation. And for good reason, these things are considered to be the product of the human mind's ability to fool itself.
"One can know things about life without having to falsify it in a lab."
Everyone used to *know* things like the sun and planets revolved round the earth. It was obvious. There is a bloody good reason for testing things in a lab. The human mind cannot be trusted. The only truth is independent, verifiable, repeatable experimentation to gather data. Then you test and hone your theories over and over again, adjusting or discarding as new evidence comes along.
"When science legitimately points to a 100% naturalistic answer, no problem"
So who decides what's a naturalistic explanation? What if there was a group of doctors who still used the theory of the 4 humors. They would use your argument against modern medicine. Or chemists who believed everything is made of the 4 elements air, earth, fire and water? "All those different atoms? Nah. Our theory is much simpler".
Science is full of discarded theories. Your proposed method means that no natural explanations are needed at all. No progress is required. No data is required. Everyone already *knows* how the world works.
- Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -1/+45"And we don't demand that science ALWAYS point to a natural cause and effect simply to have a conclusion that is falsifiable. "
- Wakkyweed, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15@onetimer
Your first quote should have read "Ignorance more frequently begets Digg posts from JimmySpaza".- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Friedrich Schiller - Wakkyweed, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7"With Stupidity, even the Gods struggle in vain"
Hare's another for you - "With vanity comes Digg posts in a foreign language." - Phyraxus, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3@ wakkyweed: "Sociocentricity frequently begets xenophobia."
- Wakkyweed, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1@Phyraxus - Yes, you are correct. Not quite sure, however, why you would direct such a comment at me. Were you possibly referring to Jimmy "Mr. Sociocentric Xenophobe" Spaza?
- Phyraxus, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I mean, you being critical of someone posting in a language other than your own by calling it vanity. It can work both ways my friend. =P
- Wakkyweed, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Bah - the only thing I'm vain about is my modesty. =P
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
- JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -39/+6Not true. Most creationists simply don't demand a naturalistic process, cause, and conclusion about aspects of life on this planet...the way that atheistic evolutionists do.
- Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -2/+48"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution"
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)- JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -33/+3Dobzhansky was wrong. He, like many of you, have already made up their mind that natural processes can account for everything. Science has shown that not to be the case. Thus, we look for the answer elsewhere.
- Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -2/+22Has it really?
BTW Dobzhansky believed the evolutionary process to be the creation of God. Still have the same opinion? - JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -24/+3@Cate320
"BTW Dobzhansky believed the evolutionary process to be the creation of God. Still have the same opinion? "
Yes. - Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -2/+27Your assertion demonstrates that you willfully ignore reality. An individual who believes that an event is ultimately the work of a deity cannot be said to have "made up their mind that natural processes can account for everything". Either you are fundamentally irrational, or you are dishonest.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -2/+23"He, like many of you, have already made up their mind that natural processes can account for everything."
You've got it backwards - there has been no evidence to suggest that there are any supernatural causes, or supernatural explanations, so science has no reason to look for such causes or explanations. Further, there has been no indication that naturalistic explanations are inadequate for explanation. - Coven, on 07/01/2008, -2/+20"Either you are fundamentally irrational, or you are dishonest."
There's always option 3. he's a sad excuse for a troll with nothing better to do. - spongya77, on 07/01/2008, -1/+10Can you please present us with this proof?
- alpharaptor, on 07/01/2008, -2/+12god was just a placeholder for a real answer
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4"Science has shown [that natural processes can account for everything] not to be the case."
Has it really? One example, if you will. Realize that 'Creation Science' is not an acceptable answer; you'll find no reputable scientist that will have anything to do with that religious claptrap. - JimmySpaza, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1@ Fordi
Take a look at one of my posts in this:
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Florida_Gives_Evo ...
I talk about the odds needed for natural processes to randomly create the first DNA molecule...without design...without intelligence. - BlackBob, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Here's a brief summary of the argument that Jimmy refers to:
Garbage In - Garbage Out
- Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -2/+22Has it really?
- hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -3/+12"Evolution is cleverer than you are."
Leslie Orgel (1927 - 2007) - IglooBurner, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6"Giggity, giggity."
Glen Quagmire.
- JimmySpaza, on 07/01/2008, -33/+3Dobzhansky was wrong. He, like many of you, have already made up their mind that natural processes can account for everything. Science has shown that not to be the case. Thus, we look for the answer elsewhere.
- shutaro, on 07/01/2008, -2/+17That's a fearsome hat Darwin is wearing, there.
- btschul, on 07/01/2008, -62/+2150 years of *****. The idea that we evolved from single celled organisms is almost as ridiculous as the idea that we were created by some all powerful invisible dude in the sky.
- Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -0/+21Please justify your assertion.
- btschul, on 07/01/2008, -21/+1foa an explination, please see my comment below.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/150th_Anniversary ... - ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+26So basically, you have some unevidenced beliefs... versus the Theory of Evolution and all the countless facts, evidence, and peer review behind it.
What makes you so special that we should pick your flavor of unevidenced ***** over that offered by religion? Especially in light of the fact that evolution *DOES* have evidence? - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -19/+2I didn't say you should pick anything. I just offered my opinion.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15...and I ridiculed it for the worthless thing it is.
- jezsik, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9Just opinion, huh? You aren't, by any chance, a producer for Fox news, are you?
- bloomanchoo, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13btschul has an "opinion" vs. 150 yrs of scientific testing and peer review.... hahahahaha
maybe your a creationist?
just admit it, you would feel so much better.
of course thats my opinion too. - Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6@btschul:
For an understanding of how hereditary genetics works from an abstract point of view, please read the Wikipedia entry on Genetic Algorithms.
You'll find that, given random (mutation) and random, but smooth (selection) inputs into a reproductive system, and given allowance for duplication mutations (that is, a section of the substrate data may be duplicated, lengthening the substrate), the output is nonrandom (consistency of average substrate data), and the delta complexity level (length and non-predictability of average substrate data) over time is deterministically positive.
Add 'species' - that is, determine that substrate data cannot reproduce in concert with other substrate data that is more than X% different - and you'll find that the output is still nonrandom, but with a similarity bell curve centered around 2X%.
Funny thing, by the way: even with static selection criteria, punctuated equilibrium occurs in simulated models. Just like to note.
Essentially, all I'm telling you is that the evolutionary process, as applied using variation by mutation and natural selection, isn't as random as you appear to think. I hope that can give you a broader view on the subject.
- btschul, on 07/01/2008, -21/+1foa an explination, please see my comment below.
- Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+22Wow. Someone that doesn't believe in Creationism OR Evolution?
Please sir, tell us YOUR ideas.
(I really am curious)- btschul, on 07/01/2008, -36/+2I think that trying to understand how we got here is like a genetically engineered single celled organism trying to understand the process by which it was created. I am sure something created us, because when you think about it, the universe and humans and everything are so ***** complex that it is impossible that it is all just random. I am also sure there is not some all powerful invisible dude up there who hears us when we talk to him and loves us so much he will send us to hell if we mess up. I am sure there is a purpose, but I think there is no way for us to even comprehend whatever it is, so I just live for today and don't worry about it.
- onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -3/+30"I am sure something created us"
So, you are a creationist.
The only thing that is ***** is your reasoning, though. - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -25/+1Not in the traditional sense of the word, though. I don't believe some all powerful god who loves us but won't give us any evidence he exists and expects us to follow a book full of contradictions snapped his fingers and created the world in 7 days. But you have to admit, the idea that we came from single celled organisms who came from ..... somewhere, is pretty far fetched. If monkeys are our closest evolutionary relatives, why are there still monkeys? Why aren't they evolving? Of course natural selection exists on some level; minute changes in species occur because of traits that aid survival, but the idea that natural selection could change single celled organisms into something as complex as the human body is just stupid. Look at the human brain. It is so complex we still don't know entirely how it works. The idea that something that complex randomly evolved is laughable.
- onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -2/+23Irrelevant what KIND of god you believed created us. Creationism is an umbrella term that encompasses the idea that *any* kind of divine/supreme being created us.
"But you have to admit, the idea that we came from single celled organisms who came from ..... somewhere, is pretty far fetched."
You see, that's your problem right there. What you just typed isn't science. It's 100% personal opinion. You have to accept that just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't imply that it couldn't have arisen through natural means.
The rest of your comments indicate a lack of understanding about the actual mechanics of Natural selection. I suggest you start here to educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -25/+1I didn't say a being created us. I have no idea what created us. I just think in a few hundred years, people will look back and laugh at us like we do at the people who believed the earth was flat, or people who believed that the sun revolves around the earth, or people who worshipped the sun. They will say "Haha, those asshats believed we evolved from single celled organisims.".
- brstilson, on 07/01/2008, -3/+17"I am sure something created us, because when you think about it, the universe and humans and everything are so ***** complex that it is impossible that it is all just random."
So what created that "something?" What created the thing that created that "something?" Eventually you have to believe in a complex being that wasn't created. To me it's much more unlikely that an intelligent being was "always there" than basic energy and matter being "always there." - onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -2/+19Yes, yes you did:
""I am sure something created us""
""I am sure something created us""
""I am sure something created us""
-btschul
If 'something' is not a being, what could it possibly be? You're back peddling, dude. - Clydesdale, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13Don't bother with him. He obviously slept through his science classes in public school.
- btschul, on 07/01/2008, -17/+1I said something. something is not a synonym for someone.
- onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -2/+13Ok...
What could have created us that is "something", but not a "being"?
Just give it up, man. You are a creationist. Either you believe we were created by a supreme *entity*, or you don't. - Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15A super intelligent computer must have done it.
...Right? - Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14"If monkeys are our closest evolutionary relatives, why are there still monkeys? "
Your question begs another: why should there not be monkeys? - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -13/+1@onetimeronetimer: If you read the original comment, you will see, I said I have no ***** clue "I think that trying to understand how we got here is like a genetically engineered single celled organism trying to understand the process by which it was created."
- btschul, on 07/01/2008, -15/+1@Dimensio: Why haven't they all evolved into humans?
- hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15"because when you think about it, the universe and humans and everything are so ***** complex that it is impossible that it is all just random."
Arguement from ignorance. Just becuase you think something is impossible doesn't make it so. - onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -2/+18Ok... So you don't believe we were created by a being per se, but something so complicated that the mind can't possibly comprehend it? We need a name for this thing...
How about... GOD? - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -14/+1"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
-Professor Edwin Conklin - Coven, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12The Flying Spaghetti Monster could be a "something"
- Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+22@btschul We didn't evolve from apes as we know them today. We share a common ancestor.
I can't believe people still try to use that as an argument. - onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15Again, that quote isn't proof. Even if he was right, did he say it was impossible?
Remember, even those single celled organisms took BILLIONS of years to form. Astronomically small odds don't mean much over billions of years. - hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13""The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
-Professor Edwin Conklin"
Appeal to authority. Logical fallacy. Keep 'em coming. - Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+17Also, Evolution isn't based on chance.
Ever hear of natural selection? The mutations arise by chance, but whether or not they stick around depends on how beneficial they are to the organism. - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -14/+2"Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)
Yeah, just go along with what you were taught in public school and don't think for yourself. If it is in a book, it must be true, right? - nitsuj, on 07/01/2008, -1/+18"Why haven't they all evolved into humans?"
For the same reasons that your cousins didn't evolve into you. Modern day monkeys have evolved. Humans have evolved. We both share common ancestry.
This is such a basic aspect of the theory of evolution that it signifies that you know next to nothing about it. Why then do you make claims that it is '*****'? - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -16/+1There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.
To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains. - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -15/+1No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive.
- Clydesdale, on 07/01/2008, -1/+18*sigh/Facepalm*
- btschul, on 07/01/2008, -15/+1http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm
The fossils don't lie. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13@btschul
Another appeal to authority, the same logical fallacy you used earlier.
Quote mining will get you nowhere - using the words of someone else is not a valid substitute for actual data or evidence for your position.
Besides, Wells is a member of the Discovery Institute - he's just another creationist douchebag with an agenda.
Also, fossils don't lie, but that article does. Try talkorigins.org next time you want a source. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15@btschul
"No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life."
Why would we want a mere Law to describe something that would likely require a Theory?
Look up Abiogenesis some time.
"one kind of creature"
Please strictly define a "kind", and what mechanisms are in place on the genetic level to prevent one "kind" from evolving into another "kind" and how they work. - Fedaykin311, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4@ApokalypseNow RE: Theory
Heh, nice. now watch the creobots head explode as he tries to process what you said! - Cate320, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13@ApokalypseNow, I actually think he believes that Evolution states that actual individuals spontaneously turn into another species - pokemon style.
I totally get where he's coming from if pokemon is his only source of Evolutionary Theory. I think we are all wasting our breath. - btschul, on 07/01/2008, -9/+1What the hell is pokemon?
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12"The fossils don't lie."
Very true, it's the guy who wrote the article who lied. - Phyraxus, on 07/02/2008, -1/+10btschul is obviously ignorant, if not a creationist.
He already said "something" made us (I doubt he meant chemistry/physics), that it can't be because "randomness" that got us here, things evolve by getting more "complex", you can't change an insect into a non-insect(so called "Macro"-evolution), equating evolution to abiogenesis... (I'm sure the list goes on, but I was just skimming through.)
As always, it is interesting to see how people reject a theory they know nothing about. Even if we were to correct his misunderstandings, odds are he wouldn't accept evolution through personal incredulity. - Dimensio, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5"@Dimensio: Why haven't they all evolved into humans?"
What environmental selection pressures exist within the habitats of the various monkey species that would lead toward such development? To which monkey species do you refer?
- KillsTheWeak, on 07/01/2008, -32/+1Whats sad, is its been 150 years and it's still a theory :P
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+26You fail at understanding the definition of a Scientific Theory.
http://www.notjustatheory.com - Kafka0622, on 07/01/2008, -0/+16So is gravity. Do you believe in that?
- btschul, on 07/01/2008, -15/+1Gravity isn't a theory, asshat.
"Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other, and is one of the fundamental forces of physics." - Mnementh2230, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11Ah, but we don't know the exact mechanism by which gravity actually works. Thus, we have the FACT that gravity exists, and the THEORY of gravity which tries to explain it.
We also have the FACT that evolution occurs, and the THEORY of evolution which tries to explain it. - greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9That's the theory anyway
So, have you ever seen gravity? or just a bunch of phenomena like objects moving towards one another?
the·o·ry –noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: - ApokalypseNow, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Technically, gravitation is just a case of the Theory of Special Relativity.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+26You fail at understanding the definition of a Scientific Theory.
- Kafka0622, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Ok. Well, maybe you have something there. Apparently we haven't all evolved beyond animal intelligence.
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Beyond? I was thinking of "up to", but a lot of the comments here do not fill me with hope
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Well, given that humans are by definition, animals, we *can't* evolve past 'animal intelligence' without cybernetic augmentation.
- KillsTheWeak, on 07/01/2008, -9/+1Scientist can dodge the real meaning of the word all they want, fact is, evolution is not a fact. Proof of evolution is nowhere near 100%, until or if it ever is, it's just another fairy tale.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14"evolution is not a fact"
Cit+ E. Coli, Nylon-eating bacteria, and the near-complete phylum of life described by the Foraminiferans would like to disagree with you on this. - Fedaykin311, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12Ha! Are you really so daft as to assert and/or really believe that every word has only one meaning and that it's meaning can't change based on the context it is used in?
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' " From Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
- Mnementh2230, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12A theory in the scientific sense is not the same as a layman's theory.
"Hmm... I push the button on the toaster and my bread turns into toast. I have a theory that the toaster manifests a small portion of the SUN to make my bread hot" - this is a layman's theory.
"Hmm... I observe that life changes over time in response to its environment and other factors... and after careful consideration, years of fact checking, peer review, and countless hours of lab work and observation, I've created a theory that tries to explain how this FACT occurs" - this is a scientific theory. - twitchr, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6ITT: a bunch of inbred idiots that don't know what a scientific theory is....
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4"Scientist can dodge the real meaning of the word all they want"
It's not scientists that are dodging. The meaning of the word 'Theory' has been the same since 1638, when it was formalized as "an explanation based on observation and reasoning". You're dodging by using the colloquialism.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14"evolution is not a fact"
- Tr3mulant, on 07/02/2008, -3/+2It's satire you morons.
- btschul, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1And tr3mulant wins the prize. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to realize it. This whole thing was satire. i just wanted to see how many people would get all pissed off if i challenged evolution. I just googled things like "anti-evolution arguments" and posted quotes and stuff that I found. Some hateful dickhole actually sent a shout to my profile saying that I was a religious nutjob. Jesus, people really get angry when you challenge the things they have come to accept. Of course we weren't created. This whole thing has been a big joke and these dim ***** got all serious about it. I am not actually a creationist, i am a nihilist, if anything. I don't really believe in anything. I really couldn't care less.
- Phyraxus, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
- btschul, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1@Phyraxus : tr3mulant realized it was satire.
- Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -0/+21Please justify your assertion.
- ghaib, on 07/01/2008, -6/+20I can't believe that it's "only" 150 years... This should have been self evident hundreds of years ago, probably was to some. They just got crucified and burned.
- eir574, on 07/01/2008, -0/+25Plenty of things seem obvious once someone has managed to point them out.
- herschman321, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10people have considered it for thousands of years - even the greeks debated about it
- kmolnar, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Darwin was really just the first one to have the critical combination needed to get the theory off the ground: evidence, insight, monetary backing, and the courage to cast not only his own faith (he was preparing to enter the clergy, after all) out of the equation, but to challenge the world at large to do the same.
Epicurus and Aristotle had both written on the idea (but they were philosophers, not biologists) extrapolating from the difference between an organism and its direct offspring, similar species and gradients of distinction, etc. The main thing holding back the theory was an understanding of genetics. Until genetics was discovered and at least partially understood, there was no way to find strong evidence supporting evolution.- greenfyre, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1As stated the idea of Evolution had been debated since the Greeks, possibly before. Darwin's epic contribution was the missing piece, Natural Selection, a credible mechanism for how it worked.
- Munk3y, on 07/01/2008, -24/+1Sweet, here with go again with both the creationist and evolutionist zealots!
- onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+20Since when has adhering to a philosophy of looking through life from a scientific viewpoint make one a zealot?
- Munk3y, on 07/01/2008, -12/+0Hey I'm all for science but when it's jammed down your throat just like the religious zealots do with religion, you become an evolutionist zealot. Every time there's an article about one or the other here, you have nothing but arguments and how people must believe in evolution or they're stupid or should get their ass kicked. It's ridiculous and that's what whenever an article comes like this I read the article and laugh at all the sad lives of the hypocrites that post slamming anyone and everyone that doesn't swallow anything they say. Look back at the comments related to this article and tell me you don't see pseudo-intelligence zealotism at it's best ;)
- m3th0dm4n, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Your reply is metal retardation at it's best.
- godcomplex, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2METAL!!!
- Munk3y, on 07/01/2008, -3/+0Yes, it's quite clear you're not a "metal retard", m3th0... heh
- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4We all know m3th0dm4n meant to say "mental retardation". It's not a huge intellectual victory to find a typo in someone's Digg comment.
Everyone makes them including me. And being critical people's views based on their typing skills rather than their ideas is just childish. - godcomplex, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2It is also possible to take a joke.
- m3th0dm4n, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I'm a metal retard :(
- RealmDown, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Creationists are evolutions way of making more creationists.
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Since condoms are evil and all.
But seriously, I do take solace in the fact that for every adult creationist I've ever met, there's an atheist child of that creationist.
Congratulations, overzealous fundamentalist christians, on shooting your own ideology in the foot.
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Since condoms are evil and all.
- anillop, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8There is no such thing as an evoloutionist.
- Munk3y, on 07/01/2008, -8/+0You sir, are stupid.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionis ... - TsuruchiBrian, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7There is no such things as unicorns either
Oh wait UNICORNS DO EXIST... It's in the (same) dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unicorn
//sarcasm
There might be people that refer to themselves as evolutionists. There are definitely people that refer to others as evolutionists. The fact that the word exists in 1 particular dictionary is irrelevant.
I don't know what the exact meaning of anillop's comment was, but I know several people who do not believe that a word describing someone who believes in evolution is necessary. Just like we don;t need a word to describe people who believe that gravity exists or one to describe people who believe the earth rotates around the sun. Although I think technically these people may be called called "heliocentrists".
- Munk3y, on 07/01/2008, -8/+0You sir, are stupid.
- onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+20Since when has adhering to a philosophy of looking through life from a scientific viewpoint make one a zealot?
- Hetman, on 07/01/2008, -2/+25If you do not accept evolution as truth due to the overwhelming evidence supported by thousands of scientists around the globe, why come and post on a thread about evolution? I do not go to your church and start screaming about how Jesus never existed and religion is a ***** lie. Becuase that is fine with me if that is what you chose to believe based on your faith.
- pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -7/+7"If you do not accept evolution as truth due to the overwhelming evidence supported by thousands of scientists around the globe, why come and post on a thread about evolution?" replace evolution with global warming and you've got most diggers.
- RapnGranny, on 07/01/2008, -18/+2I didn't know Digg was the aethist church. Strange how freedom of speech only applies to 1 side.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+17You're perfectly welcome to engage in discussion and voice whatever opinion you have, but don't be surprised if we call you on it when you start talking *****.
- mlrigsby, on 07/01/2008, -0/+15You are perfectly free to speak. Freedom of speech does not entail freedom from criticism, however. On the one hand, you have the most well-established theory in all of modern science. On the other hand you have a strange mishmash of confused theology, discredited philosophy, and blatant lies. You are free to speak for whichever you like, but the rest of us don't have to pretend that there is a debate between two equally plausible positions.
Also, there is no link between atheism and evolution. Darwin himself was a Christian, and the Pope has been an advocate of Darwinian evolution. Surely you don't believe the Pope is an atheist? The Judeo-Christian tradition has always interpretted the creation story as poetry and metaphor. The literal interpretation is a relatively new phenomenon developed by American Evangelicals. - cesig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6I see you've managed to post your inane rant with no repercussions from the Digg community.
So you're clearly allowed to. Ergo, free speech lives on Digg. So your false premise that Digg is an "atheist church" (whatever that even means) is irrelevant and incorrect.
The fact that you may end up receiving an unfriendly response in return is not the same thing as a restriction on free speech.
If you don't understand that then don't worry, you've got a lot of friends in the religious right. You and them can all suffer your imaginary persecution together. - rgucci, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1i live in china, there is no freedom of speech...
- Hetman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5You have the right to say whatever you like. I am a constitutionalist. It falls under the 1st amendment. It just seems kind of pointless to go out of your way to berate people. Like I said I do not go to church and talk about evolution and jesus not existing because it is rude not because I do not have free speech. Secondly I am not an athiest. And atheism is not a religion.
- hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4They get points for this mission work I think.
- rgucci, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2actually, there is historical evidence that a man named Jesus did exist roughly 2000 years ago. quick google search turns up a bunch of articles, but i'm too lazy to quote them and the issue isn't very important to me.
what's debatable is what christians claim Jesus to be/was and what he did.
- BevansDesign, on 07/01/2008, -4/+10If any creationists are thinking about posting here, let me just warn you: don't bother. Really.
And come to think of it, if anyone is thinking about trying to convince the creationists who DO post here that they're wrong, you're probably wasting your time. But I'm not going to tell you not to try.- Gimjee, on 07/01/2008, -6/+6I'm a creationist, but I'm not going to blow off hard evidence about evolution either. There's no reason why both don't work together.
- urbandistrict, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6I beg to differ. There are plenty of reasons why one would not work with the other. I would also argue that you are not what is considered "a creationist" if you are not willing to blow off hard evidence about evolution. (which is a good thing)
- Gimjee, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7There is no reason that says they don't work together. If you're going to take the 7 days thing literally, it's possible, but the Hebrew word for day means any period of time, the reason the word day is used, is because it happened in steps and didn't all just happen at once. Which doesn't conflict with evolution. The bible also says that God told the Earth to create creatures to in habit the areas, which also supports evolution.
- noahhoward, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7I'm going to guess that your belief is that evolution is a tool god used? /curious
- evilesttoast, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6@noahhoward
I am a creationist who believes in evolution. Very few people take the 7 Day part of Genesis to be literal, most of us understand it to be poem like in its design. Animals didn't just start popping out of thin air. - urbandistrict, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6As long as you cherry-pick from the good book then it's all good...
By all means continue your mode of belief as you see fit, just be realistic and expect others to consider those beliefs to be foolish.
We, humanity, a mere spec in the charted universe was able to ascertain 2000+ years ago that an All-knowing being of infinite power which happens to share very human characteristics designed all existence with no other proof than the process of belief itself. We have yet to discover or to explain why, but we have gotten a step closer as to how? By evolution?
I think you are right in the notion that our brains cannot comprehend the workings of "our lord" because it's completely absurd.
- urbandistrict, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6I beg to differ. There are plenty of reasons why one would not work with the other. I would also argue that you are not what is considered "a creationist" if you are not willing to blow off hard evidence about evolution. (which is a good thing)
- Gimjee, on 07/01/2008, -6/+6I'm a creationist, but I'm not going to blow off hard evidence about evolution either. There's no reason why both don't work together.
- Inohavehalos, on 07/01/2008, -6/+14Heres to the next 150 years.
Hopefully we'll all not be crazy dismissing science for rediculous stories. - FeloniusMonkey, on 07/01/2008, -14/+7Here's to the last 6,001 years.
- Szandor, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Don't know why you are getting dugg down. I thought it was a fine example of sarcasm.
- FeloniusMonkey, on 07/01/2008, -19/+5Here's to the last 6,001 years!
- urbandistrict, on 07/01/2008, -1/+29Note: Also the 150th anniversary of people attempting to disprove the theory to fit their agenda.
- onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+36But the bananas, they fit right in our hand! Where's your evolution now?
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+18But the pineapples, they don't fit!
Hope you don't get dinged too hard for your lack of a /sarcasm tag. - hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+30"But Ray, my dick also fits perfectly in your hand, does that mean God designed it for me to put there?"
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+18But the pineapples, they don't fit!
- mcsenget, on 07/02/2008, -6/+1I just don't see why we can't also celebrate the 150th anniversary of Intelligent Design.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10No point celebrating that which has contributed nothing.
- urbandistrict, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Happy Birthday Paris Hilton!!!!
- mcsenget, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1i was joking!
- onetimer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+36But the bananas, they fit right in our hand! Where's your evolution now?
- darkfus, on 07/01/2008, -15/+2I am sure they'd both be ecstatic to know that their work is also used quite thoroughly as fodder by atheists who only read the cliff notes.
- nitsuj, on 07/01/2008, -1/+16That's generally more than creationists have read.
- darkfus, on 07/01/2008, -12/+1So basically they're no better. I am glad we cleared that up.
- cesig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9I'm sure they would. After all, it's a sound theory that accurately describes a natural process, with an extremely beautiful simplicity and elegance.
I'm sure it's also been used by countless theists who aren't hamstrung by a particular version of reality prescribed to them by a 2000 year old book.- darkfus, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2"I'm sure it's also been used by countless theists who aren't hamstrung by a particular version of reality prescribed to them by a 2000 year old book."
Yes, but not as fodder. Which is really the whole point.
- darkfus, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2"I'm sure it's also been used by countless theists who aren't hamstrung by a particular version of reality prescribed to them by a 2000 year old book."
- nitsuj, on 07/01/2008, -1/+16That's generally more than creationists have read.
- jbenson2, on 07/01/2008, -29/+5The theory of evolution:
Hydrogen is a light odorless gas, which, given enough time turns into people.- Coven, on 07/01/2008, -2/+23Not quite, but you're getting there. Hydrogen formed into stars, in the cores of which formed denser elements. We are all the stuff of stars. Every single atom within your body was once at the core of a star.
- Wakkyweed, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11Damn you Coven! You must have typed that answer about 10 seconds before mine. I've been scooped!
- Coven, on 07/01/2008, -0/+107 minutes to be exact :)
You one upped me with the Carl Sagan shout-out, though.
- Wakkyweed, on 07/01/2008, -2/+23Well no, that's more a Theory of Abiogenesis. But strangely enough, if applied to abiogenesis, it's pretty much correct. Hydrogen is what the stars are made of, and as Carl Sagan so eloquently put it, we are all made of star stuff.
- rohank9, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5im a SUPER star ^_^
- Coven, on 07/01/2008, -2/+23Not quite, but you're getting there. Hydrogen formed into stars, in the cores of which formed denser elements. We are all the stuff of stars. Every single atom within your body was once at the core of a star.
- galvo, on 07/01/2008, -17/+27Stupid ***** Christians..
- hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+21The muslims are much worse at this evolution thing than the christians.
- godcomplex, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Now that's how you win people over!
- Phyraxus, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Damn, I just find it awesome you aren't buried. LOL
- leandrotami, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3With the same authority as you I may say 'stupid you'. You're being offensive, and you're wrong if you think that all Christians are as fanatic and stubborn as in your country. You seriously need to get informed.
- galvo, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Awww, someone hit a nerve.
- daxsymbiont, on 07/01/2008, -5/+11religious lunatics' 5000-year anniversary.
- KMyHero, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11I challenge the theory of evolution without about as much zest as I challenge the theory of gravity. Score one for the home team, Chuck.
- ormmarine, on 07/01/2008, -33/+0A digger got buried above for calling Darwin's theory racist. I think what he was referring to was the full title of Darwin's book:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life."
Kind of racist, because what it is claiming is that one species (or race) is better (favoured) and more highly evolved than another.- Jandels, on 07/01/2008, -0/+14Here's a pro tip: Try reading the whole book as opposed to just the title.
- Disgod, on 07/02/2008, -0/+12You're also intentionally misinterpreting the meaning of "favored race". When Darwin speaks of favored races he is actually talking about a species that is better able to compete in the world compared to another group. It makes no claims that a black person is better or worse than a white person, just that a species which is better able to cope with its environment will be able to propagate better, and eventually can replace the original species. You are inserting your own preconceived notions about what the term race means. The other guy got buried for the same reason, "On the Origin of Species" is not in any way racist. People have perverted Darwin's work to explain why they do and think evil things, but that doesn't mean Darwin was racist.
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Actually, he was using 'race' in the correct context: a subspecies that can still reproduce with other subspecies. A 'race' within a species. The whole argument of the book is how races with advantageous variations speciate into the variety of species we see today.
The term 'Favored' is kinda backward, mind you; he means favored for survival by the environment - when the fact is that the environment doesn't 'favor' anything; the subspecies is either better or worse at surviving the environment.
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Actually, he was using 'race' in the correct context: a subspecies that can still reproduce with other subspecies. A 'race' within a species. The whole argument of the book is how races with advantageous variations speciate into the variety of species we see today.
- Phyraxus, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Don't judge a book by its cover.
- niobevulpes, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2The English of 150 years ago is different from today's English? You mean... it evolved?
- hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11It's a much grander tale of life than anything you can find in bronze age myths.
Just look at what happens when you give hydrogen atoms 13.7 billion years!- f4nt0m4s, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Truly. But it's also the source of much wonder; either we are a probability fluke, energy made living, or something set us in motion. I think Evolution becomes FAR more fascinating if you subscribe to the idea that we are a probability fluke. It is an improvised, on-the-spot system, designed to benefit organisms, built essentially around energy. Crazy stuff.
- tufftugg, on 07/01/2008, -30/+2Evolution...roflmao
- ElDiablo6870, on 07/01/2008, -7/+6What do any of us know for certain? Not a damn thing. Personally, I see the Bible is just a book written by man. But, if it gives you peace or a sense of purpose, I am happy for you. I think we most likely evolved over a very long period of time. I have no reason or inclination to believe otherwise. To each his own.
- hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -2/+15Truth is not an opinion.
- ElDiablo6870, on 07/01/2008, -17/+0Define truth? Truth may be evolutiuon to you and the Bible to me or vice versa. And, yes, what I posted was just my opinion and nothing more. You have yours.
- hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13Truth is that which happens to be true. If you believed that the Sun rotates round the Earth you would be wrong.
- geodebug, on 07/01/2008, -5/+3Thought in space everything was relative? In a very real sense the Sun rotates around the Earth depending on your viewpoint.
- hfactor, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Actually, leaving other objects aside, both of them rotate around the barycenter of the sun-earth system - from every viewpoint. Its distance from the sun's core is given by
distance between earth and sun / 1 + (mass of sun / mass of earth)
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Dugg up for tolerance.
But I gotta say, as a programmer, the human body looks and behaves much more like a uberkludge built on incremental changes than a system built using well thought-out plan.
- hauntedchippy, on 07/01/2008, -2/+15Truth is not an opinion.
- aidave, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1http://digg.com/general_sciences/Humans_Primates_P ...
- Galaxylander, on 07/01/2008, -4/+16Watch as the stuck up Christians roll their eyes.
- eclectro, on 07/01/2008, -12/+7Actually I'm seeing far less of that then I am bigoted egotistical evolutionists who think they are intelligent by deriding every Christian in existence. Evolution indeed.
- Duggan360, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Hypocrite much?
- eclectro, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Being truthful is not being a hypocrite. It only shows your own deficiency for even suggesting it. Nor do I feel any obligation to be a doormat to typical digg anti-Christian hate.
- Duggan360, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1No I mean most of you christians bitch that we don't play make believe
- eclectro, on 07/01/2008, -12/+7Actually I'm seeing far less of that then I am bigoted egotistical evolutionists who think they are intelligent by deriding every Christian in existence. Evolution indeed.
- GorfTron, on 07/01/2008, -30/+4Happy Birthday theory of evolution! Just remember that you are only a "theory" and not a fact. We don't need any uppish theories going around telling up what's what.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+21You, too, fail at understanding what constitutes a Scientific Theory.
http://www.notjustatheory.com - danharlow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9Theory : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
Dictionary. Do you use it? - GorfTron, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4You both Fail at seeing sarcasm.
- BionicWhippet, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12Poe's Law :
“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing. ”
Originally coined by Nathan Poe hence the name. - greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7And in fact conservapedia has a major problem distinguishing real conservatism from liberal sarcasm http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_can ...
- danharlow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5No, you fail to be funny.
- Silencer7, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Pfft. Poe's "Law" should just be a "theory."
And therefore unworthy of any attention whatsoever.
...wait...
- BionicWhippet, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12Poe's Law :
- rohank9, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5nothing in science is a fact...nothing can be proved "for sure"...just disproved
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+21You, too, fail at understanding what constitutes a Scientific Theory.
- michael43, on 07/01/2008, -14/+1Your kind of love spreads the Aids Virus.
- squidball, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5You're an ignorant piece of *****, but I'm sure you've heard that before.
- michael43, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1You have a belligerent mouth don't you squid-testicle. Aren't you fortunate you have the Internet so you can insult people from great distances? I bet you even puff up your chest while you're typing. I find it humorous because I know that with your low IQ, you're going to forget one day and insult someone in person. I hope they reach down your big mouth, push their fist out your ***** and pull you inside out. Of course, it probably wouldn't be the first fist in your ass, just the first from that direction.
- squidball, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2@michael43:
*****, you're stupid, but even worse, you're predictable. Your MO is to make a stupid comment, get schooled by somebody who actually knows something, and then attack one or more of the following attributes of the person who reminded you you're an idiot: IQ, sexual orientation, ethnicity, courage, and/or age. You're also a racist and hardly the Christian you pretend to be, and no matter how many times you try to deny it, it's plain for all to see. Get some new material, you dumbass.
- squidball, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5You're an ignorant piece of *****, but I'm sure you've heard that before.
- Striff, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7150 years...and most of the world still doesn't believe it!
- mtrip, on 07/01/2008, -0/+16The world completely believes it. America and Islamic theocracies don't believe it.
- ehamberg, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Most of the world?
You must be American...
- jorad, on 07/01/2008, -18/+1Still just a theory huh? What's the next step?
- greenfyre, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - the·o·ry -noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
- greenfyre, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - the·o·ry -noun, plural -ries.
- danharlow, on 07/01/2008, -4/+15You know what the best thing about evolution is? Is that it's a fact and it really happened. I love science!
- KillsTheWeak, on 07/01/2008, -13/+1Random mutations :P
And about the word thing, i think what your referring to is the highly advanced technical term "candy coated". What you do is, if people don't like what your selling, you slap an extra word to it, or try to reason why the word means something different, to get people to change there mind.- KillsTheWeak, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Oops hit the wrong reply button that should of been in the thread i was already in :P
- primus101, on 07/01/2008, -26/+2Wow 150 years of mass speculation on past events no one could observe or test or PROVE THEY ACTUALLY OCCURED. 150 years of a theory that cannot be proven and is being taught as "science" in schools and that so many Diggers worship like a ***** golden cow. DO NOT CALL ME CHRISTIAN. God and the bible are also unprovable and just as much *****. WE DON'T ***** KNOW WHY WE ARE HERE LEAVE IT AT THAT, We might have been created by God, we might have evolved, we might be in the ***** MATRIX. ALL WE KNOW IS THAT A=A and what exists, exists. So go celebrate your ***** hero and his ***** theory you ***** arrogant *****.
- Hetman, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13So you are just going to ignore the last 150 years of other scientists finding evidence that points to evolution being truth? The theory of evolution has been gaining more evidence everyday since darwin died. We do not know exactly what gravity is, should we not teach it in science class?
- primus101, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1LOL...Gravity is totally different from evolution. One is a testable phenomenon the other is specific events that occurred billions of years ago when no person was there to observe it. Also with evolution you are assuming that all the laws of physic and thermodynamics have remained constant throughout time...a huge assumption. If evolution holds any merit show me a specific website or book that describes in detail every single step in the evolutionary process to get to humans.
- danharlow, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9The number to your local suicide hotline is located in the phone book. Give 'em a call.
- primus101, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1nice a true valid argument....YOU = PIECE OF *****
- makeitloud, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9A couple things: 1) the theory of evolution has a lot of -- at the very least -- circumstantial evidence to support it; 2) you can't disprove it. From this I conclude that if you can't prove the theory of evolution is *****, then your claim that it is ***** is *****.
And anyway, God might have created evolution for all we know. Now THAT would be ***** cool.- primus101, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1OK nice logic...ok so it has some circumstantial evindence..but it is not for me to disprove it when you can't prove it. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
- kayala, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Primus, it's not our fault you're too lazy to educate yourself. www.talkorigins.org
By the way, disproving the theory in this sense means that there are some things that absolutely should not happen according to the theory. For instance, finding a modern rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian strata would disprove the theory. That has not happened as of yet, so evolution has not been disproved. See?
By the way, WE DON'T WANTONLY USE CAPS LOCK AROUND HERE.
- geodebug, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10*****=***** I believe you meant to say. As in you are an ***** who doesn't understand what you are talking about, which is made obvious by the manner in which you chose to express your non-beliefs. I bet it is hard to believe in anything when you apparently are willing to settle for not knowing anything.
-- yours truly, an arrogant *****.- primus101, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1Yet you have no valid argument to counter what I said so instead call me an *****...cool and yes you are an arrogant *****.
- kitsua, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12That's it! Stop THINKING you guys! Where on Earth has that ever got us?
Whatever you do, DO NOT ask questions. DO NOT use your imagination. DO NOT develop your consciousness.
EVERYTHING that has resulted from the gradual development of the human psyche and all the progressions of society are WRONG (apart from caps lock, obviously, that's quite cool).
Intelligence, contemplation, curiosity, true consciousness, the development of the self, invention, creation, basic humanity - all of these things are BAD! The BEST thing, is to listen to the true, wise words of the primus101, for verily; "A=A and what exists, exists" - if you truly understand this and accept it, everything will be better.
Now ***** stop being so ***** arrogant you ***** ***** *****. - bowens44, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8Do you wear a red rubber ball on your nose and big floppy shoes when you post?
- primus101, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1actually yes and you mother gives me head while i type as well
- founderofpork, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Christ, is it possible to add a button to digg that is more emphatic than just a thumbs down? Because I would use it over and over and over again.
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Holy *****: A Scientologist fundie. (Hint: The A=A is lifted from one of the OT levels)
Didn't think you guys even existed. - BobNoxious211, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4"....celebrate your ***** hero and his ***** theory you ***** arrogant *****."
Why so angry?
This is what the Fundies call a well structured argument.
Maybe you were on the debate team at CBN University?
BTW - The original Evolutionary Theory was created thousands of years ago by Democrates, the guy who thought up the grand idea of Democracy, which the right-wing moonbats want to militarily force on all other nations. How could Democrates be so wrong about one thing and so right about another?
Read a book. ANY book. Even The Bible. You'll find that even in religious texts, "Hate is bad, mmmkay?"
- Hetman, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13So you are just going to ignore the last 150 years of other scientists finding evidence that points to evolution being truth? The theory of evolution has been gaining more evidence everyday since darwin died. We do not know exactly what gravity is, should we not teach it in science class?
- nicksauce, on 07/01/2008, -9/+4(Citation needed)
- socketman, on 07/01/2008, -23/+2and 150 since the accelerated decline of the world.
Thanks darwin! For the vastly unproven theory that give people an out to act like aholes. Survival of the fittest remember?
If there is no God, well then I can do whatever I want without fear of consequence (hint the whole reason this theory was invented)- Hetman, on 07/01/2008, -0/+17You cannot invent a discovery. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Please look up kant and utilaterianism, just to name a few morality based philosophy that does not rely on holy texts. Secondly if you think the world was a better place 150 years ago you have never read a history book. I mean if we just look at segregation your hole argument falls apart.
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/02/2008, -0/+14If the fact that you believe in the existence of a magical sky fairy is all that keeps you from being a sociopath, then I am very much afraid of you. The rest of us have this thing called a conscience.
- Fordi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8Interesting. Let's check out some parallels, shall we?
Islamic nations, in the Dark Ages, were bastions of scientific progress. Enter fundamentalist Islam, and BAM: you have a good number of third world nations in just a few hundred years.
During the same period, those Fundamentalist Christian nations in Europe for which the Dark Ages are named emerged into the Renaissance, the period of Enlightenment, and ultimately the Industrial and Information ages.
As far as I can tell, the advent of science and shunning of zealotry has been the rise of the western world, not the decline. - TheCatsPants, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4"Survival of the fittest remember? "
It works for capitalism.
"If there is no God, well then I can do whatever I want without fear of consequence"
Not really. That's why we have the police and the judiciary system. Back in the good old days, when everyone believed in God, I guess there was no jails? - kayala, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2It's sad that so many people refuse to see that the theory of evolution cannot be consciously applied to society as social Darwinism. I've heard it a million times: "If we come from animals, then why don't we act like animals?" Aside from the obvious implication that according to this logic, if we come from a deity, then we should act like deities, and aside from the obvious fact that animals are not simply barbaric, solitary creatures, but actually have social structures and work as teams, think about this: my lineage can be traced from my grandfather directly to me. My grandfather was a rapist. Does that mean I have license to be a rapist, because my ancestor was one?
Now, selective pressures on the human species have been largely killed by modern science, technology and medicine. If we enact social Darwinism (against the social values instilled in us by our evolutionary past), we are using artificial selection rather than natural selection. There's a huge difference. Artificial selection is, for instance, a human choosing which two dogs out of ten will produce the strongest or most desirable offspring if bred. Natural selection is, for instance, finches with large, powerful beaks being more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on their genetic coding for large and powerful beaks, in a habitat where hard-shelled nuts are the primary food source. See the difference?
"If there is no God, well then I can do whatever I want without fear of consequence"
This is an extremely nihilistic view and does not put much faith in mankind, which has developed governments, legal codes and justice systems since the earliest social organizations were formed. Before the Christian "God" existed, legal codes were in place with many familiar laws (see the Code of Hammurabi). After the Christian "God" became part of people's minds, the only laws that seemed to be added were religious ones expressly concerning Christianity, methods of worship and codes of decorum befitting the forced Christians. Note the difference.
Please educate yourself before you return to this thread.
- GorfTron, on 07/01/2008, -6/+2Thanks for Poes Law. I will include a smiley from now on because of retards like danharlow.
- ElDiablo6870, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5So, if I believed the Bible was written by man and therefore subject to error, would I still be wrong?
- PeeEqualsNP, on 07/01/2008, -9/+3I see Christian/atheist bashing much to quickly for any of these posts to affect the other sides opinion much. I'll try to explain why I, as a Christian, try to (and most of the time successfully) find the hand of God in science instead of seeing them as mutually exclusive (hold on the buries for at least a minute please).
The experiences I've had in my life, call them "religious moments" or whatever you want to explain them away as a "psychological problem", have literally left me in a place where I cannot say I do not believe in God. He is as real to me as the computer I am typing on. This is my individual case and I concede that people can be in the same position I am currently in and at some point stop believing, it happens. My evidence cannot be tested or repeated... it is only evidence that I can apply to myself. It's kind of like I have visited one of the other possible 9 or ten other dimensions and took some measurements then returned to Earth. Obviously no one who hasn't visited this dimension and taken the same measurements will believe me, nor should they, scientifically speaking. But I will always look to apply knowledge in this universe to the knowledge I have about the "other" universe I visited.
That being said, even Stephen Hawking has said that there might have been a God that set the universe in motion and bound it to certain laws. To apply the knowledge gathered by science to my beliefs without changing the knowledge is a completely plausible way to view the world. Science, currently, does not explain everything (see the article about bilingual children for one simple example). This doesn't mean it eventually wont... but until then I believe my view points are valid on both sides of this argument.
This will probably be buried in hury, but to everyone who has made it this far, continue to do research on both sides so that the incompetent "stupid Christian" and "gonna burn in Hell" elementary school arguments might someday be less prevalent on Digg.- Disgod, on 07/02/2008, -0/+9Stephen Hawking was being academically honest, science can not definitely prove that there is no god because the concept of god by its very nature cannot commented on by science because it is supernatural. Hell even Richard Dawkins, known for his anti-religious nature admits that on a scale of 1 to 6(don't