Comments on: Gawker Goes Bugnutty On Creationist Piece By Brooklyn Heights Writer

By: Joe A

Joe A — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:43:00 +0000

If only hair were brains.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:56:00 +0000

Troll bait? No, the trolling was hers. She posted the inflammatory, provocative piece – the very definition of trolling. How could one in 2013 not know what trolling is? Mein gottt!

By: MonroeOrange

MonroeOrange — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:21:00 +0000

wow..really clever trading of barbs you two, bravo!

By: David on Middagh

David on Middagh — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:02:00 +0000

Skinny comments = too much arguing.

By: petercow

petercow — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:31:00 +0000

You’re an idiot. and are either deliberately or stupidly not understanding the use of the word “theory”, as it is used in science:

Go back and repeat 5th grade. Maybe 4th, too.

In modern science, the term “theory” refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support (“verify”) or empirically contradict (“falsify”) it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word ‘hypothesis’).[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]

By: Heights Observer

Heights Observer — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:29:00 +0000

It is the LAW of gravity, not the theory. I learned that in the fifth grade.

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:17:00 +0000

Wrong again, you must be thinking of yourself.

By: Joe A

Joe A — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 02:59:00 +0000

One thing you do have right is that creationism belongs in the same category as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. They are all very pleasant fantasies, meant for children, and utterly absent any scientific evidence.

By: HenryLoL

HenryLoL — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:44:00 +0000

Bahahaha. I feel so sorry for you. Must have such a sad and lonely life. No need to respond.

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:37:00 +0000

Exactly the kind of idiotic statement we expect from you Henry. Keep proving your profound lack of intelligence to the rest of the neighborhood. LOL LOL LOL

By: Brooklyn Dinky Dau

Brooklyn Dinky Dau — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:21:00 +0000

Too bad.

By: HenryLoL

HenryLoL — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:14:00 +0000

Hang in there, Virginia. Dont be bothered by what some idiots here have to say. All opinions are welcomed in this neighborhood and what i have (happily) come to learn is that this blog IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER reflects the way people in BH think or feel.

By: GOD

GOD — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:24:00 +0000

The funny thing is “The Book” is not my “Word” at all, it was written by the “Other Guy”. LOL

By: Joe A

Joe A — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:18:00 +0000

I don’t even understand this response but whatever.

By: David on Middagh

David on Middagh — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:09:00 +0000

Martin wrote, “Random action does not result in stable order.”

It had better, or our weather would be fully unpredictable!

By: Brooklyn Dinky Dau

Brooklyn Dinky Dau — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 02:44:00 +0000

Joe, did your mom and/or dad take you to Macy’s to see Santa? What about those baskets the Easter Bunny left you? How much did you make on the Tooth Fairy? Did your world crash when you found out none of them existed? I think evolution and progress would come to a dead stop if everyone were as intolerant and unimaginative as you. Live and let live, and life will go on – obladi oblada, forever and ever, man.

By: Joe A

Joe A — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:58:00 +0000

Giving respect to creationist theories that dispute the accepted scientific principles of evolution is the problem not the solution. Giving respect to such nonsense has allowed the teaching of creationism in our public schools in many parts of the country, that damages is as a nation. It breeds a disrespect for knowledge and science. In this very competing world economy the US is losing ground as we give equal respect to fantasies as we do to science. This respect has allowed museums where dinosaurs are depicted walking side to side with humans because as you know we have to respect the belief that the Earth is only 4,000 years old.No I will not give respect to creationism or alchemy or astrology or alien abductions or any other bizarro belief not supported by facts and/or scientific examination.Feel free to feel morally superior to me for your respectful acceptance of people's fantastical delusions.

By: Peter Pan

Peter Pan — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:26:00 +0000

Nice hair.

By: Brooklyn Dinky Dau

Brooklyn Dinky Dau — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:24:00 +0000

Respect,Joe, not ridicule is what civilized people do. Of course, that is what is lacking in today’s society and you most certainly exemplify that lack.

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 21:43:00 +0000

No, not on faith, My brain is capable of quantifying the empirical evidence and making a rational judgment. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has the fossil and genetic evidence to prove it to a large degree. I know it hasn’t been proven in its entirety, Thus it isn’t “Darwin’s Law of Evolution”. That is the beauty of Science; nothing is true until it can be irrefutably proven. I am well aware the “Random Mutation” component has not been proven but given the evidence we have, it is currently the most plausible. Research over time will yield the answer(s). Whether it be Random Mutation or some other factor we don’t yet know of. We will probably never know that answer in our lifetime and I am comfortable with that. I don’t need to believe a made-up pseudo science to fill in the gaps.

If Creationism can ever show empirical evidence of its theses, I and other science minded intellectuals, will give it credibility. Science is dynamic not dogmatic.

“Faith is interesting because it is not founded on science and isn’t a mathematical search. It is complete trust in something based upon belief” In other words; Faith is believing in something that is more than likely not true but you want to believe is true, aka a fantasy.

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 19:17:00 +0000

Arch, take a look at what Schroeder has to say sometime. In science there is evidence to support many theories. This is the foundation for their existence. I posit that empirical evidence/proven fact disproving Darwin is in the foundation of Darwin : Random action does not result in stable order. In fact, randomness itself is more commonly unpredictability.

Because of this Darwin can’t be more than one of many theories of everything, all of which are lacking any substantive evidence. I suspect your position on Darwin might be more of a faith than anything else.

Faith is interesting because it is not founded on science and isn’t a mathematical search. It is complete trust in something based upon belief. Although science often compliments Christianity, Christianity is not proven in science and never will be. That’s not the purpose of it. To compare faith and religion to scientific theory with foundational issues isn’t a functional exercise.

By: Joe A

Joe A — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:18:00 +0000

She has a right to her position and I have a right to ridicule her position.

I am not getting into a debate about evolution. If you don’t believe in evolution so be it. I have no desire to go down that rabbit hole of utter stupidity.

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 18:10:00 +0000

She Has a right to her opinion. However, it is ignorant for her or anyone to refute empirical evidence in the name of “faith” (simple belief in something without any proof or evidence). While it is true Darwin’s Theory has not been proven in its entirety there is much evidence and empirically proven facts supporting it. So far no one has come up with a better theory that has such a supporting wealth evidence. Sorry but “Creationism” does not have any such supporting evidence. It is simply a desperate move by a waning religion to pull back some of its “believers”.

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 17:38:00 +0000

Doesn’t she have a right to an opinion just like you? Why is it so “ignorant” for someone to share a view that is consistent with the beliefs of one third of the world’s population? Personal attacks are not an effective response to a difference of opinion.

When was evolution proven? When were random reactions were able to produce stable order? Just curious. I believe Gerald Schroeder made a great case for his own theory where science compliments creationism and I suspect it would be quite audacious for you to suspect any ignorance coming from him. He has a theory of Biblical evolution which you will likely find interesting.

By: petercow

petercow — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:46:00 +0000

I’m embarrassed that I live on the same planet, let alone in the same neighborhood, as this idiot.

By: Joe A

Joe A — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:40:00 +0000

Because the original work is profoundly ignorant and should be an embarrassment to BH residents.Sorry, but I have no patience for people that dismiss evolution as just a theory. I invite them to jump off a high building since gravity is only a theory as well.

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:31:00 +0000

Why did you choose to highlight an article refuting the local journalist’s original work? Regardless of what your opinion is, it would be more appropriate for you to highlight our local journalist instead of highlighting an Internet troll’s response.