what dreams may come. . The "Evolution is "t misled thousands "I apologise to deliberately undeniable, " is not who were seriously gay people for concealed simp what dreams may come The "Evolution is "t misled thousands "I apologise to deliberately undeniable " not who were seriously gay people for concealed simp
Upload
Login or register

what dreams may come

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
The "Evolution is "t misled thousands "I apologise to
deliberately undeniable, " is not who were seriously gay people for
concealed simply a "theory" Ill and deceived them spreading fear and
evidence of child out last. based open into the Misti could hate throughout me
molesting priests every single area heal them through Christian community.
and intentionally of scientific study divine means and I understand they are
protected the worldwide. I have became wealthy part of the fabric of
pedophiles to protect manipulated evidence by coercing the the human race and
the church and their and even lied to desperate out of their deserve the same
interests," support my claims money." rights and respect as
Pope Francis that creationism is a - Benny Hinn anyone else."
true science." - Pat Robertson
Ray
And then I woke up.
...
+672
Views: 41180 Submitted: 03/27/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (238)
[ 238 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#2 - anon id: 7a32b523
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
evolution IS a theory (not saying i don't support it)

you can't actually prove evolution until you can disprove every other possiblity
#93 to #2 - anon id: 3fe981d9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Earth revolving around the sun is a theory
#122 to #2 - nebraskaom
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Alright lets set some things right, nearly everything in science is technically theory. Even the things called laws. Gravity as is currently the most popular example, is a theory as well. We already know it is not entirely correct because it can't be included in the other basic force laws. However it does very accurately predict what will happen due to masses interacting at a distance, making a very accurate and well proven theory. As for evolution, it can never technically be proven. But it so far has passed every scientific test of its theories, and has been used to predict things like antibiotic resistant drugs.
#123 to #2 - anon id: 2f8fa5be
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
a scientific theory is an everyday hypothesis
#126 to #2 - icefall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Evolution is a fact. How and when it happens is a theory.
It's just like gravity. It is a fact that we get pulled towards the earth, how and why it does is a theory.
#4 to #2 - teranin [OP]
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
That's why they worded his statement like they did "It's not simply a "theory" but fact, based upon every single area of scientific study worldwide" Evolution is a theory in the context of what a scientific theory is (see: Relativity, Gravity, Heliocentricity, Big Bang) in that it coincides with experiment and evidence in relation to the natural process it is trying to explain, to the degree that it is fact unless some piece of evidence comes along that responds to experiment negatively, and behaves counter to the natural process being explained in said theory.

This is the definition of a scientific theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force
User avatar #81 to #2 - mistercookie
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Its not a theory =/= hypothesis, evolution is generally accepted as the way things went, its the same as the theory of germs. We do know that germs exist, but theory exists in the name.
User avatar #82 to #81 - mistercookie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
The start was unclear, i meant "Its not a theory, theory does not equal hypothesis.
#12 to #2 - soulwrenchio
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
Many people mistake theory for hypothesis...   
Scientific theories need a solid base of research and thereby "proof", to actually be   
considered a theory.
Many people mistake theory for hypothesis...
Scientific theories need a solid base of research and thereby "proof", to actually be
considered a theory.
#85 to #12 - anon id: 705c6433
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Not exactly. Take, for instance, the dopaminergic and glutaminergic theories of schizophrenia. There is ample evidence for both, but no solid, actual proof for either one, yet in the biological community they are still referred to as theories. I think you may have your own understanding a bit wrong.
#180 to #2 - anon id: 01663646
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
You don't understand the scientific definition of the term theory, which is a hypothesis for which enough supporting evidence has been found to confirm it's validity. You stupid ******* thundercunt.
#190 to #2 - anon id: 13087595
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
anon here to say that there is a big difference between hypothesis and a theory, a theory HAS to be backed up by facts and an hypothesis is a what is more of a question based on logic.
#201 to #2 - anon id: 4a93cadb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
"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. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, 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')." You can prove evolution, because there is a lot of proof for it. But it's hard to disaprove other possibilities when they require faith and not actual proof.
#205 to #2 - anon id: 19214033
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
[url deleted]

A theory is the highest you can get in science. It IS a theory. And it CAN be proven.
It HAS been proven in modern medicine, and in laboratories.
User avatar #45 to #2 - rhetoricalfunny
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
It's true, it's only a theory, heavily backed by evidence.
Consider this? In medieval times, people believed that the sun rotated around the earth, and they had evidence. (The sun moved in the sky) however this evidence was only based on their understanding of things at that time.
Much like our evidence is now.
We could be 100% right, or we could be 100% wrong and we would never know because it all makes sense, based on what we know. And there's a **** ton we don't know.
User avatar #103 to #2 - skaterchris
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Evolution is a theory by definition, but it is also a fact accepted by the scientific community. Evolution is the reason why you need a new flu shot regularly.
#19 to #2 - hitro
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
I think your misunderstanding something.


Nothing in science is 100% provable that's why they say we think or something like that.

Also I can say what is logically under pluto's surface but that does not mean I have to prove that there isnt a unicorn.



Oh who am I kidding you wont see this.
User avatar #21 to #19 - europeanswallow
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
True. Nothing is 100% provable. No self-respecting scientist will tell you that evolution is a fact. There are very few facts in science. What a self-respecting scientist WILL tell you is that there is a substantial body of proof for the theory of evolution, more so than any other theory (including creationism, intelligent design, etc.)

While there is a possibility that there are unicorns under pluto's surface, there is a larger body of proof that says it's probably not
User avatar #65 to #21 - anonymoose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
The only facts in the universe are mathematical facts.
#22 to #21 - hitro
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
^ exactly

probably better worded than mine too,

okay so it was worded better than mine >.>
User avatar #18 to #2 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
everything's a theory.
#164 to #2 - anon id: 0f600216
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
how is evolution a theory when you can litteraly track down the DNA line between species
#7 to #2 - anon id: 41fc5a70
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
even your existance is one
#157 to #2 - princessthymicorn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Germs are a theory.
User avatar #76 to #2 - imasillyginger
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
It is only a theory because we cannot test evolution.
User avatar #136 to #2 - cadencee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Theories are formed from a series of facts, they do not become them.
User avatar #9 to #2 - anonymoose
Reply +116 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
Gravity is a theory.
User avatar #68 to #9 - thepyras
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
People say this like it means something, but it doesn't. When people talk about gravity they're talking about the effect, not why it happens. If you hold a rock up in the air and let it go it's going to fall. Period. There is a theory as to why that happens, but the effect of gravity is not. I am also not saying I don't support evolution.
#196 to #68 - kanade **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #150 to #68 - burningsmurfs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I think people only say this because they don't know for sure what all effects it has. I remember in school being taught that it must technically remain a theory because gravity one day could stop working and we would have no idea how or why even though there's like .00000000000000000000000001% chance of that ever happening.
User avatar #69 to #68 - thepyras
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I meant to say the effect of gravity is not a theory.
User avatar #242 to #9 - atrocitustheking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/17/2013) [-]
Ask the Japanese about Atomic Theory.
#240 to #9 - anon id: 1f07a71d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2013) [-]
Its acuallly a law Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation
[url deleted]
#186 to #9 - anon id: a32d7227
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
And the theory of relativity is also.

The problem with evolution is it relies on a specific set of circumstances in order to make sense. The difference between Einstein and Darwin is Einstein TRIED to disprove his theories in order to validate it.
#170 to #9 - runsliketurtle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
gravity is a law, not a theory
User avatar #206 to #170 - anonymoose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Newtons law of universal gravitation is a law. Gravity itself is a theory.
User avatar #167 to #9 - asmodeu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Everything humanity knows so far is a theory (except for some small axioms, which I'm sure wouldn't have the same value of truth if it were to be applied in some alternate universe).

In spite of all that though, we can still travel through space, build huge-ass buildings that can maintain themselves and harness their own energy and heal almost any sickness. And if there are some that we can't we are sure as hell doing a lot of progress to get there.
#162 to #9 - downtoabsolutezero **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #145 to #9 - drtrousersnake
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Gravity is a law which amounts to a super theory
#134 to #9 - anon id: 80b67d5a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
isn't that technically true? Gravity IS a theory. It's one we're pretty damn sure is correct, but it's still a theory. Same with evolution.
#102 to #9 - anon id: b19a13fe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
...Point?
User avatar #71 to #9 - srskate
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
exactly, you are both correct.
#60 to #9 - anon id: dc5f4fc3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
no its not. evolution is. get your science right, bitch.
#53 to #9 - anon id: 3588b737
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
its a fact dude.
User avatar #58 to #53 - dadukesta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Do you know exactly why Gravity happens?
User avatar #54 to #53 - anonymoose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Technically it's not.
#17 to #9 - anon id: 8e29943c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
You're retarded it's a law.
User avatar #23 to #17 - anonymoose
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
A law is not a step above a theory. Something can be both a theory and a law.

Theory: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
Law: the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules
[Marriam-Websters]

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that the force between 2 objects is directly proportional to the mass of each and inversely proportional to the square of their separation.
This and other things give us the theory of gravity.
#61 to #23 - anon id: dc5f4fc3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
it gives us proof of gravity asshole therefore its gravity isnt a theory. evolution is theory because it is impossible to test with the scientific method but you can use the scientific method on gravity. faggot
User avatar #62 to #61 - anonymoose
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Did you even read the comment there.
#113 to #61 - anon id: 44328f80
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
It can be tested though? Why do you think there's a new flu virus every year? We can see evolution happen. It CAN be observed.
#28 to #9 - McBalls
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
your moms a theory
#30 - unclaimedusername
Reply +62 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
You're all wrong, repent and turn to Talos!!!!
#106 - hamsterball
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
i love how all these people are christians, bunch of ******* hypocrites
User avatar #108 to #106 - teoberry
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Atheism is like a feminist
You don't have a penis, that's fine.
You don't want a penis, that's fine too.
But stop trying to cut mine off
#131 to #108 - ichies
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Well that's as bad as religious people trying to shove their **** up the throats of others.

You know who the real atheists are? The guys that don't want to be ANYTHING. I don't want to be labeled at all, I just want everyone to **** off with their ******** and don't bother me, because it's a waste of my time. But no, there will always be a guy that must label everything, it's something or a-something, since it "battles" with christianity it must be another religion, while people don't even know the meaning of a-theism. But going around and educating christians is actually the far opposite of what non religious people would want to do.
#207 to #131 - teranin [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
that joining teams mentality is actually a critical evolutionary trait that helped humans survive the early stages of their species propagation. While I agree that I don't really like putting myself in the same box as the many asshats that share the same label, there are real and noticeable benefits to doing so, like the fact that I don't have to sit down and explain to every new religious person that I meet about my lack of faith while trying to dodge their easy box of labeled immediate comprehension. Helps move the conversation on to better topics more quickly, and helps to have that label so that the people within that label will be more likely to find you likeable than if you were to visibly distance yourself from them.
User avatar #212 to #207 - ichies
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
The point is, you don't have to do that, it's none of their damn business what you believe or not believe in. And if they cannot respect that, then maybe you shouldn't bother with them. And yet, let's say you tell them you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, I'm 95% certain they just won't respect that, and why? Because they think their religion is simply "better". I'd rather be anti-social and enlightened, than a hypocritical moron who speaks about respect for others, while doing the opposite.

And btw, who the hell talks about religion? You couldn't find any better topics :P? "Going to pub with some new people, and breaking ice with: "sooo what about dem gods?". Hard to take that seriously :).
#121 to #108 - curbed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Oooh! I like that!
I'll have to use it sometime.
User avatar #120 to #108 - BillyRyan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
When you suddenly realize something that, subjectively, at least, alters your entire worldview, you're filled with an evangelical zeal most of the time, that feeling that everyone must think the way you do, because it's so good it would be selfish to keep it to yourself.

This obviously happens to both theists and atheists, but the polarity of the two ideas inevitably create clashes. Not to say everyone on either side is vocal--quite the opposite. Most everyone stays quiet in their view of religion. However, as with everything, there are extremes, and the extremes are loud.

My point is, both of you are making extreme generalizations about two very important ideological opposites. Not to be the moral police in this case, but it's a fair bit dehumanizing.
User avatar #110 to #108 - popcornqueen
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Funny, but I just want to say that you have the wrong definition of "feminist". It's still a good joke, though.
User avatar #111 to #110 - teoberry
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
eh, they're the only people i see trying to cut dicks off, unless you count those 'other gender' people who are saying 'die cis scum' and the like.
User avatar #112 to #111 - popcornqueen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Well, that would be if you used "feminist" to mean a woman who thinks men are inferior. Originally, it meant someone (male or female) who believed in gender equality. They were slandered as man-haters, and unfortunately some women started to live up to the stereotype. Thus, the feminazi was born.

I learned a bit in a women's history class and it just kind of bugs me when people use "feminist" incorrectly.
#127 to #112 - anon id: cde560df
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Feminism has changed. Definitions of words change. In today's society, it has become someone with extremely radical beliefs that women should be "equal" yet their version of equal is that women are better and men are the devil. Feminism when it started was much different. He used it correctly for today's society.
User avatar #238 to #127 - popcornqueen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2013) [-]
Respectfully, I disagree. If you look up "feminism" in nearly any dictionary, you will find it defined as the social movement for gender equality, based on the idea that women are equal to men, neither superior nor inferior. Referring to women supremacists as feminists is, frankly, an insult.
User avatar #13 - lavitts
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
I don't even know these guys.
~Jesus Christ
User avatar #29 to #13 - landartheconqueror
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
but jesus knows everybody...
#33 - buttholee
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
But the bible talks about evolution, it just doesn't embrace that it's the beginning of man.

I was taught in class that the bible talks about fish coming out of the sea, and walking like man.

tl;dr- Evolution in the bible.
#55 to #33 - anon id: 3588b737
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
where does it say that? It would be great evidence to use when I try to argue my cases. I believe God made everything, and then let nature take it's course. Also, how long is a day for God? his 7 days of creation could be millions and millions of years to us. just saiyan. possibilities.
#118 to #55 - anon id: f4a6ebf7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Deist master-race reporting in
#73 to #33 - anon id: 3588b737
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
It also says that all things were created through him. THROUGH.
natural selection is a fact.
Gods are a faith.
A faith is more like a theory, plenty of your own personal evidence, but who would beleive your spiritual stories?
what the hell am i even saying anymore derrrrrrrrrrr
#143 to #33 - anon id: a0e8321c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Cite the passage, or get the **** out.
#163 to #33 - downtoabsolutezero **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#160 - finni
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
#77 - orangepikmin
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
User avatar #83 to #77 - iamthou
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
"I really like that techno that skrillex makes"
User avatar #86 to #83 - sadpandaissad
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
he is so swagger
User avatar #26 - Namezone
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Evolution is a theory. So is gravity. A theory cannot be made into law. A law describes what something does (like the law of universal attraction, that all things we know about are attracted to all other things based on their mass) and a theory describes how it does it (like gravity creating a "depression" along the fabric of space/time and drawing other depressions towards each other) I don't think the Theory of Evolution has enough evidence to be universally accepted, and i've aced two college-level biology courses on the subject. That's all i really care to say on the topic.
#27 to #26 - anon id: 3f14a06f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
i feel like what something does and how it does it are one in the same.... example!

what gravity does: attracts things together based upon thier masses
how gravity works: attracts things based upon their masses
User avatar #31 to #26 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
"I don't think the Theory of Evolution has enough evidence to be universally accepted"

Care to elaborate why? No trollbait or funny business, I'm just straight up curious.
User avatar #50 to #31 - Namezone
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
i don't believe all things came from a single ancestor that generated all by itself, to be more specific. from what i've seen in mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. i don't believe spontaneous generation could have been possible, and i don't believe living things could have increased in fitness, genetic capacity, and adapting to their environments more quickly than they become extinct. Natural Selection is the main method for genetic change, and that only removes information, never adding any. That means mutation has to be trusted to add new information, and i don't think it could add useful information randomly at a high enough rate.
User avatar #56 to #50 - techketzer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
"Natural Selection is the main method for genetic change"
No. Wrong.
Selection does not change the individual's genome, it removes it from the gene pool of the species.
It can only remove what is there in the first place.

"That means mutation has to be trusted to add new information, and i don't think it could add useful information randomly at a high enough rate."

Genetic variety does not rely on mutation, but much more heavily on recombination.
From the primitive horizontal gene-transfer of prokaryotes to the complex sexual reproduction via meiosis, this is how adaption and evolution happens.
Already selected genes are recombined in a lottery of astronomical numbers of possibilities.

Selection only comes in after that, killing those who drew the short stick, i.e. some combination making them less fit.
#158 to #56 - anon id: d8a63b06
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
He already said that natural selection serves to remove genes from the pool. He specifically said it "only removes information, never adding any".
User avatar #218 to #158 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I agree in that with him. Where is the problem?
#32 to #31 - mattkingg **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I personally do believe in evolution but i'm just going to throw this out here, i don't think people believe this i just came up with this right now and it's kinda given me a what the **** moment.

Everything humans know, is based around what we see, or what we have found out prior, so what if our measuring of science is wrong, like something we did in the past when trying to figure out science was wrong and it just kinda ***** everything infront of it up, like if you have a bad egg and it ***** all the other eggs up.
User avatar #44 to #32 - hirollin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I actually understood that and have thought about that same scenario myself.
#34 to #32 - mattkingg **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Ok what the ****, i just left my computer to go get a snack and came back to read this. What the **** am i on about?
User avatar #39 to #34 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I see what you mean.
Same with literally everything; there might not be such a thing as an atom, after all.

However, seeing as we have no means to reach objective truth and label our best efforts as "theory" anyway, I don't see why we would not give the idea of evolution that status.
#42 to #39 - mattkingg **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Personally (i will try to make more sense this time) i think that people will never agree on our creation, because there will never be proof, i believe in god and evolution because i see evidence for both, however some see evidence for just one or neither.
And the day we finally find the proof of the universe, of what is the very core for our being, that is the time we stop being human.
User avatar #43 to #42 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Heh. I like that.
"The truth will set you free."
#193 to #43 - mattkingg **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
That is, unless it destroys you first.
User avatar #72 to #31 - mylazy
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
There are two types of evolution. Microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution has plenty of scientific evidence for it. That, though, is because microevolution can happen in a rather short period of time, so we can observe it. Microevolution is more of the little changes that people believe overtime grow to a certain extent. There is much less evidence that can't be argued against in macroevolution, which is what people generally focus on as evolution. Say for example, the galapagos island finches. The argument is that because all the animals are so similar, they must have come from a common ancestor. Well for one, a similar environment will lead to similar adaptations. Not really all that hard a belief. Then they cite how the beaks of the finches have actually changed when there is a drought. But what they ignore is that the beaks actually go back to the original size afterward. Another commonly cited piece of evidence is that different animals have similar growth patterns as a fetus. This on simply isn't true. The whole theory is based off of sketches of the stages made by a guy who completely embellished what the true fetuses looked like sometimes changing it all together. The two biggest arguments against evolution that I have seen though are the cambrian explosion. By definition, evolution must have one species change into others over time. But in a relatively short period of times, the number of species that existed skyrocketed. Evolution can't explain that. The other argument is the complication of life. Take for example the flaggellum on certain bacteria. Looks really simple right? In reality it consists of something like 42 moving parts, that each require their own very specific set of DNA to form. This DNA has to be exact and each one has a very very small chance at every coming into existence. Then each individual piece must be organized in the right place. The kicker is that none of these pieces would be worth anything...(to be continued)
#78 to #72 - techketzer
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
What a mess. You made a huge mess.   
   
"There are two types of evolution."   
No, there are not. What you mean are the observable results, not the mechanism itself, which is identical in both cases.   
   
"The argument is that because all the animals are so similar, they must have come from a common ancestor."   
The argument is not that they look somewhat alike, the argument is that every single lifeform in this planet uses the one and only existing, always same genetical code to turn nucleic acids into proteins.   
They are interchangeable even across species and kingdom, for ****** sake, you can take banana-genes and put them into a turtle and they will work.   
Common ancestry? You better bet your ass.   
   
Cambrian explosion is a very inconclusive argument.   
Firstly, there might not have been such a thing as an explosive increase in species, only a destruction of the pre-cambrian fossil record.   
Secondly, it might be as easily explained as a rise in oxygen levels drastically changing the conditions of life.   
   
Forget the flagellum argument. Just forget it.   
"What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.   
   
It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins."   
www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagel lum-is-irreducibly-complex.html   
   
"That argument is that natural selection can't add DNA to a gene pool."   
I've answered this once already today, but here we go.   
Genetic recombination. Billions of trillions of possibilities. Natural selection only kills those that turn out unfit.
What a mess. You made a huge mess.

"There are two types of evolution."
No, there are not. What you mean are the observable results, not the mechanism itself, which is identical in both cases.

"The argument is that because all the animals are so similar, they must have come from a common ancestor."
The argument is not that they look somewhat alike, the argument is that every single lifeform in this planet uses the one and only existing, always same genetical code to turn nucleic acids into proteins.
They are interchangeable even across species and kingdom, for ****** sake, you can take banana-genes and put them into a turtle and they will work.
Common ancestry? You better bet your ass.

Cambrian explosion is a very inconclusive argument.
Firstly, there might not have been such a thing as an explosive increase in species, only a destruction of the pre-cambrian fossil record.
Secondly, it might be as easily explained as a rise in oxygen levels drastically changing the conditions of life.

Forget the flagellum argument. Just forget it.
"What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins."
www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagel lum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

"That argument is that natural selection can't add DNA to a gene pool."
I've answered this once already today, but here we go.
Genetic recombination. Billions of trillions of possibilities. Natural selection only kills those that turn out unfit.
User avatar #79 to #78 - mylazy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Hmmm. I would have responded to 75 rather than 72, but that isn't important. Anyway, like I said, I have no source and nothing to back it up. Take it how you will, but I can't really argue against anything you say.
User avatar #75 to #72 - mylazy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
....(continued) alone. So, you can't argue that one piece may have formed and then another and then another, and eventually they combined. The individual pieces of the flagellum are pretty useless and may actually hurt the bacteria to have, so by evolution those bacteria would die out. In which case the flagellum would never come into existence. And this is a relatively simple mechanism. Imagine the complexity of the human body, and how many living machines that can literally only function one way would have to be created. It simply wouldn't happen. I suppose I can add one more argument since this has gone on so long. That argument is that natural selection can't add DNA to a gene pool. In fact it takes it away. Let's go back to bacteria again. This time let us talk about how they resist drugs. We should all know there are millions of bacteria in our body. Some of these have probably mutated--you think that means that they have grown something new...in fact it means that they are no longer producing something that the other bacteria do. When drugs enter the body that target this thing that is no longer being produced, that bacteria that aren't producing it don't die. They have lost information that the previous bacteria had, which made them live longer. Ironically, as soon as the person stops taking those drugs, the bacteria that survived because it couldn't produce whatever was targetted starts to die out, because it can't out compete the bacteria that actually produces it.


Sorry for the long post. I don't have any sources to verify these facts other than a few documentaries I watched without getting the name of them. Sorry about that too, otherwise I would put the sources down. You can either take my word for this, choose not to believe anything I have said, or research it yourself. Whatever, I don't care. I just thought I would share it.


#198 to #72 - kanade **User deleted account**
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #213 to #198 - mylazy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I did ace biology, though I don't know where I claimed that in the comment above. All the argument above is is me spewing information given to me by other people. The reason I aced biology is because I am good at doing that. Memorization you know. That is all high school biology is. I personally prefer chemistry. Much more of a fun subject. And math. That one is pretty fun too.
#214 to #213 - kanade **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #215 to #214 - mylazy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I suppose it happens. Just means I will have to research it more later. It isn't really what I plan on doing with my life though, so don't expect me to get into it too much.
#216 to #215 - kanade **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #35 to #26 - rhiaanor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Gravity is not a ******* theory..... thats like saying my ******* hand is a theory.
User avatar #48 to #35 - Namezone
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
well kinda. Gravity, the fact that all things are attracted to all other things, seems to be a fact as far as we understand it. Gravity itself is a theory though, since we aren't totally sure HOW it works, so we can't exactly say it does, you know?
User avatar #51 to #48 - rhiaanor
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
"gravity" itself is not a theory, we know it is there, there is no denying it unless you decide that your religion says it isnt true and is true itself. Exactly how it works is a different matter(hehe, matter) but how it works i suppose is a theory, including its own laws, but gravity itself, is NOT a theory.
#156 to #51 - anon id: d8a63b06
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Gravity is a theory. We can observe that objects are apparently attracted to each other - thus gravity is an attempt to explain why that happens, but it is not conclusively proven that the theory of gravity is what is causing that observable attraction.

We see things moving towards each other, or around each other, or in reference to each other, but don't 100% know why. That's why it's a theory.
User avatar #52 to #51 - Namezone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
i meant to put in "The Theory of" before that second gravity, sorry.
User avatar #36 to #35 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Gravity is a theory, your ******* hand is a theory.
"You" might actually be a brain in a tank stimulated by electrical impulses and you would never know.
User avatar #38 to #36 - rhiaanor
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
if that was true then you would never have said that! But.... what if i was supposed to see this so i didnt come to the conclusion..... WHERE IS A GUN!
#67 to #38 - anon id: 778b3751
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I am not sure you have any idea what his argument is if you think that you would never come to a certain conclusion because of it. His argument doesn't prevent conclusions, just states that it isn't possible to tell whether there is any reality. I can't guarantee the dog next to me is really itching it's ears. I could be perceiving things that don't exist, while others don't. There can be no reality based off of this. No where in that can you possibly come to the conclusion that "if that was true then you would never have said that!"
User avatar #98 to #67 - rhiaanor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
i dont think you quite understand....
User avatar #40 to #38 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
You have no hands to hold a gun with.
User avatar #49 to #26 - greenwithenvy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
So like Gravity, there's no evolution in space?
#141 to #49 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#125 to #26 - anon id: db3170e5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Masters degree in biology says ********. If you can't describe what a scientific theory is accurately, or you haven't take note of Lenski's famed empirical evidence for evolution then I doubt you have "aced 2 college level degree courses". Sit the **** down and get your head in a book if you actually want to be a scientist.
#137 to #26 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#188 to #26 - anon id: 18a52c2b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be shocked.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them.

User avatar #46 to #26 - mrtwilightsparkle
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
This guy's right. What people don't realize is that yes, a theory is not necessarily true, but in science, a theory is practically accepted as fact, but cannot be a law, undisputed. I can't very well explain it myself, but it's worth looking up.
User avatar #57 to #46 - techketzer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Theory: possible explanation of a part of reality
Law: infinitely repeatable phenomenon

As an example, let's take Newton's third law: Every force creates an equal, opposite counter-force.
That's a law. Reality "obeys" it every time we put it to the test. Poke your finger into your desk and your desk pushes back with the same amount of force.

Now why is that? The atoms of your finger have a certain electrical charge, so do the ones of the desk. When you bring them closer and closer, they will start to repel one another just as magnets of same polarity would.
Your finger is deformed slightly and the desk surface is, too, by a few micrometers.

So what do we have here?
A law is an observation.
A theory is an explanation.
They are not the same.
#138 to #57 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #217 to #138 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
No, no, no.
A theory is a model of reality to explain a phenomenon, not a random confirmed fact.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Please guys, that was exactly the point I tried to make here.
User avatar #1 - mulk
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(03/27/2013) [-]
our world is crazy, so many people denying, coveting and cheating each other out of their lives, even in death.
During this time we have all forgotten what makes us - us. we are all humans, why is it so hard to live like this?








not enough masturbation
User avatar #59 to #1 - dadukesta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I think Humanity's problem is the fact that we can lie. If people couldn't lie then we would have honest problems with honest solutions and everyone and everything would make a lot more sense.
#185 to #1 - tittylovin
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #129 - Endofzeeworld
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Prove to me god exists, and I will believe in him.
Prove to me he does not, and I will not.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know whether or not god exists, and we can't know, by definition. So, its pretty much pointless to argue, isn't it?
User avatar #130 to #129 - liftplus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
the post wasn't about god it was about religion
#139 to #130 - mrmamric
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
re·li·gion
/riˈlijən/
Noun
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed.
#194 to #129 - guidedhandsbitch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
oh.. so you think.. there COULD be a batman..
oh.. so you think.. there COULD be a batman..
#234 to #194 - mrmamric
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
There IS a Batman. They made a movie out of him. Duh.
There IS a Batman. They made a movie out of him. Duh.
#195 to #129 - kanade **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #220 to #195 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
How do you know there isn't a teapot orbiting space?
#221 to #220 - kanade **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #222 to #221 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I never said were we verifying the existence of god, in fact, thats exactly what I was NOT saying. All I'm saying is we can't know, so there isn't any point in arguing.
User avatar #132 to #129 - criticalvector
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
We can't know for sure if celestial tea pots exist either or the invisible pink unicorn.
User avatar #135 to #132 - thedarkestrogue
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
woah woah waoh. The celestial pink unicorn exists man.
It raped me just yesterday.
User avatar #219 to #132 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
That's exactly right, we cannot. What's your point?
User avatar #192 to #129 - rototornjik
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
yaay, agnosticism!
User avatar #204 to #192 - mythicdragoon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
yeah, we're a wacky little bunch
#140 to #129 - mrmamric
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
To be honest, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a few hours a week, just on the off chance that eternal happiness and infinite paradise exists after death. I'm just playing it safe, but if he DOES exist, I'd rather be on his good side.
#147 to #140 - CrackPipeWillie
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Im pretty sure that just believing in God "the safe way" and not truly accepting him into your heart would still land you in Hell. And thats a pretty crappy way to live your life too, Id rather live mine to the fullest extent and not worry about these things.
Im pretty sure that just believing in God "the safe way" and not truly accepting him into your heart would still land you in Hell. And thats a pretty crappy way to live your life too, Id rather live mine to the fullest extent and not worry about these things.
User avatar #152 to #147 - phunkyzilla
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
What if when you die you become someone else but don't know you were ever someone else before that and that's why you have your current memmories and not your other person's memorries?
#154 to #152 - johnserrano **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #155 to #154 - phunkyzilla
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
but in buddhism isn't there a space in between your new life? I dunno the thought bothers the **** out of my head by trying to think of myself but as a new person and thinking in that new person's mind I don't even exist so having him think of me is impossible and it gives me a headache
#159 to #155 - johnserrano **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #161 to #159 - phunkyzilla
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
While I respect your opinions and outlooks, I don't actually believe in the do good receive good concept of karma I was on a mission trip recently painting and old black woman's house for her because she has arthritis in her hands and her joints in her legs are so bad she couldn't stand and when we had finished we all went down to the beach for the last time (we were staying at a small rental condo near the beach where we would eat and sleep only) and while I was there my friend managed to mangle my toe with a metal shovel which really put a damper on the I did something good today spirit and then I spend 4 hours in the E.R which was SOOO much fun

And anyway I've always felt the potentials to be good or evil whenever I wanted to it's just I have a very poor work ethic but even then I guess I might be intelligent because by putting in very little work I'm usually capable of receiving great output but there's nothing that really drives me towards wanting to do good for others or nothing really driving me towards doing evil to others either so either I haven't reached a time capable of my potential of good/evil in this world or I simply wasn't meant to do either and branch out a more towards a path of neutrality (Also I couldn't even tell English was your second/third language you put the words down in pretty good grammar as well as your sentences are neither choppy nor do they make the point your making hard to understand
#165 to #161 - johnserrano **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#149 to #147 - mrmamric
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Oh no, I'd accept the **** out of him.

But that's all theoretical talk. I've been living life the way I want and so far I haven't gotten any signs that I need to change. So I'm going to accept that he's cool with me snorting blow off a hooker's ass and death wrestle Russian X military soldiers for fun.
User avatar #189 to #140 - certifiedidiot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
To know a bit about human biology and the mere concept of an afterlife is beyond stupid.

Your brain is who you are, it holds every single thought and action you've ever taken, to think that if you die that you'd have some form of spectral back up drive that stored it all but never kicks in if someone becomes braindead, never kicks in to help those who are left disabled..

Sure, it'd be ******* nice if there was an afterlife and I could once again see and hear my father again who died when I was little, but no..

The world is not that merciful, there is no afterlife, every mistake you make is permanent, every decision is eternal, no second chances, either you become something in life or you don't.

Trust me, I wish there was an afterlife, but every bit of knowledge about the world speaks against such posibilities.
User avatar #223 to #189 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Meh, not really. If one looks at the way god supposedly works, we see that he operates outside of normal biological parameters.
User avatar #224 to #223 - certifiedidiot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, the example of a creature that created EVERYTHING ever, still needed to make a human female pregnant, possibly risking her life, to bring his avatar onto Earth.

You can trust science to make a cart, develop it further into a car, dig up precious metals from the earth, drill up deep oil and transform the oil into gasoline, to melt the metal and reshape it, assemble it all and create a car, you can trust it to do all that, you can trust it to try and save your life..

I've seen zero, none, nada reasons to worship this supposed god, he is said to have created everything so long ago, he was very active back in those times, but now with modern times, ways to record, to prove his exsistance, he remains cold towards us, never answering a prayer or thought..

Yet I've seen millions of reasons to worship mankind, a race that beat the odds of evolution, who started out thousands of years ago with ever so little, to go from a tiny rowboat to a ship that carve the ocean in half as it move, to learn flight, deep diving and even to visit other worlds..

And yeah the stories does say god works under unrestricted paramters, but those are only stories, no proof or anything.
User avatar #225 to #224 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Poetic.
Anyway, I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that if people believe in the after-life, that's why.
User avatar #226 to #225 - certifiedidiot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I know I can't do much about faith, simple as that.

It just seems to me like the dependcy on technological innovations and the continued faith in an after-life for example it just isn't two dots that connect to me and I can't help but to ponder as to how they can connect the two, well ,faith of course but do they never look at everything there is, ponder about it all and try to connection the two..

Blargh, too philosophical, dota time
User avatar #227 to #226 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Can't do dota, just don't have the skill. I guess I'll just go play league for hours.
And hours.
And hours.
User avatar #228 to #227 - certifiedidiot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
What you mean by skill?

I mainly hear that League is just simply more fast paced than Dota 2 as the main differences
User avatar #229 to #228 - Endofzeeworld
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
I dont know, I just find that I die a lot more in Dota 2 at beginner level than in league. I think Dota is a more subtle game that League.
#230 to #189 - mrmamric
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
It's actually a misconception that the brain holds your memories. Yes, it's the control center for your whole body. But If you really think it's able to store every sound and every image and every smell and every sense you've ever experienced for your ENTIRE LIFE then I think it's you who's beyond stupid.
User avatar #231 to #230 - certifiedidiot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
And what does exactly hold your collective thoughts, memories and such then?
#232 to #231 - mrmamric
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#233 to #231 - mrmamric
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
The mind. Having an external entity that controls and holds thoughts and memories is not as far out as one might suspect. In fact, many tests have shown that a mind is possible to exist, and could even be the explanation to aberrated reincarnation (where you have the same memories as someone who already died) or actual reincarnation. The mind may not exist on the same plain of existence as the rest of the physical universe, but could still communicate to it through metaphisical or telekinetic means.

In essence: the mind acts as a sort of "bank" for memories, as well as being the id, or I, of the person. It can communicate to the brain via signals (Like cloud storage on your computer) and can thusly communicate with the rest of the physical universe using the body. That could be why your brain is so important to survive. It acts as a sort of internet connection to you, and without it you can't get your metaphorical Dropbox folders of knowledge and intellect. After your body dies the mind could possibly just "choose" another and continue to live through it.

To discount actual life, or etal vital, is not scientific at all. There is an obvious acceleration in body decompostion when one is dead, and you can't simply reanimate the body as easily as gluing the pieces back together in a toy. That could be why we are unable to resurrect or create new life without sexual means as we don't have the important parts: the mind.

Again, this is all just speculation and based off pure observation. But so is anything else.

Edit: corrected spelled of Elan Vital
#235 to #233 - certifiedidiot
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
That has to be one of the silliest piles of **** I've ever read.
#236 to #235 - mrmamric
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
So be it. If you want to believe one thing instead of another then I can't argue with that.
#144 to #140 - mugigs
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
but what if he does exist but all the things you thought he thought were good were actually bad to him?
#146 to #144 - mrmamric
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]
Then I'd go to Hell with Bob Ross. Nothing's that bad when you're with Bob Ross.
#151 to #129 - mochidrake
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(03/28/2013) [-]