Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#244 to #179 - ragingbrony (05/02/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Has science gone too far!?
#234 to #179 - christinanoelle (05/02/2012) [-]
Next stop: Gummy bear centipede..
Next stop: Gummy bear centipede..
+32
#193 to #179 - unholyalchemist **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#186 to #179 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
**anonymous rolls 90**

i like ripping the face off one and putting it on another. hannibal lecter bear.
User avatar #216 to #186 - dractheripper (05/02/2012) [-]
Will he eat the others liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti?
User avatar #177 - divinedpk (05/02/2012) [-]
this is gonna be in my written statement for our lab tomorrow on what went wrong
#173 - constantiine (05/02/2012) [-]
I'm sure this will cause a hurricane of red thumbs. This is a repost from 9gag. Or does anyone care about what's reposted anymore?
#230 to #173 - jeyfman (05/02/2012) [-]
we don't give a **** were we get the content we just don't want to deal with there audience
#203 to #173 - spikethepony (05/02/2012) [-]
Well, I just gotta say, the man upstairs made a "minor" error in his creation of OP....
#170 - deftin (05/02/2012) [-]
**deftin rolled a random image posted in comment #7916 at Video Games Board **

#162 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
**anonymous rolls 023,255,410**
#155 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
actually retard, evolution "theory" is a fairy tale for idiots.

1. genetic limits- genetic limits are built into the basic types, ex, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may vary, but despite the best attempts of intelligent dog breeders, dogs are still dogs. If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why expect non intelligent natural selection to do so?

2. Cyclical change - Changes are not directional towards the development of new life forms, as macro evolutionary theory requires, they just shift back and forth within a range. Ex, Darwin's finches adapted to correlate with the weather. Larger beaks helped with harder seeds during droughts and small beaks helped when wetter weather brought smaller seeds. The proportion consistently reversed itself to match the weather,no new life forms came into existence

3. Irreducible complexity - An irreducibly complex system composed of several well-matched interactive parts that contribute to the basic function,wherein the removal of any of these parts causes the system to fail. Being that all biological molecular machines are irreducibly complex,meaning that all parts must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes,in operating order, at the same time, for it to function, therefore any intermediates would be nonfunctional

4. Molecular isolation - It has often been said the close DNA relationship between humans and apes implies an ancestral relationship. This can easily be interpreted as a common ancestor OR a common creator. After all, if every living creature were distinct biochemically, a food chain would not even exist

5. Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms - Natural selection creating NEW lifeforms is unlikely because transitional forms could not survive. Ex, if birds evolved gradually from reptiles,there would be a transition between scales and feathers, in which would not be able to survive in any habitat
User avatar #245 to #155 - ahj (05/02/2012) [-]
A few things:

your so called 'genetic limits'. Your example is a failure. Dog breeders are not aiming to create a new species. There is, however, an example using dogs that counteracts your point. Man domesticated the dog, and in doing so, created a new species in the gene 'canis'. Dogs were at one point wolves. Next, 'cyclical change'. I don't think you properly understand the theory of natural selection. Natural selection says that traits of individuals who are best suited to survival are most likely to be passed on, as those animals are the most likely to survive to reproductive age. With Darwin's finches, it was a simple matter of the wider beaks being better suited to survival during dry years, and narrower beaks being better suited to survival during wet years.
User avatar #246 to #245 - ahj (05/02/2012) [-]
Thirdly, irreducible complexity. There are many reasons that so called 'irreducible complexity' is false, but I don't want to list them here as they would take up a lot of space; I will say, however, that there have been several studies that show that even if irreducible complexity were always true, it could show up in evolution, and it has on some occasions. Fourthly, 'molecular isolation' as you call it, which is a completely inappropriate title for what you described. The amazing thing is not the fact that humans and apes are closely related, but that they are more closely related than humans are with other animals. This is similar to the relationship between brother and sister compared to the relationship between third cousins. This means that, like brother and sister compared to third cousin, humans and apes must have a more recent common ancestor than humans and other animals. This, once again, points to evolution. Fifthly, your so-called 'nonviability of transitional lifeforms'. Once again, your example is a failure. Birds did not evolve from reptiles, they evolved with reptiles. They evolved from dinosaurs, and at no point did they have scales and feathers. As a matter of fact, there is proof that some dinosaurs such as velociraptors had feathers. They could have grown these feathers for the purposes of insulation, waterproofing, or some other reason. Your argument has once again fallen flat on its face. Finally, the picture you used is normally used in a sarcastic format. Checkmate, anon.
User avatar #231 to #155 - mofoinghfl (05/02/2012) [-]
i like smoothies.
#225 to #224 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
Actually, retard, I wasn't "trolling" anyone. Someone brought up evolution earlier, so I refuted it.
#240 to #225 - kamikazeren (05/02/2012) [-]
This isn't the place to post your beliefs when an overwhelming majority here on FunnyJunk disagrees with you, and will rip you to shreds because of it. Plus, it is inappropriate timing to post something like this when it isn't even relevant to the subject matter. Also, at the end of the day no one don't give two ***** about your "opinion" so you can suck on my strap-on dick. Look who's the retard now.
#208 to #155 - mrrazzy (05/02/2012) [-]
0/10
User avatar #205 to #155 - archiferd (05/02/2012) [-]
-25 thumbs. 1 favorite. Wut?
#197 to #155 - kbxcn (05/02/2012) [-]
Mm, yes. This is TOTALLY the place for such seriousness. Religion isn't the place for the internet. Didn't your mother ever tell you? "Religion is like a penis, you don't just go shoving it down others' throats." (I'm not saying you are, but who the hell knows where you've been.)
Personally, I don't believe in evolution either, but if people want to believe, let 'em!
#204 to #197 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
You don't believe in evolution because you don't understand what it is. You're probably conflating it with atheism.
User avatar #209 to #204 - kbxcn (05/02/2012) [-]
Actually, I'm not. I don't believe in Evolution because it doesn't make sense how an animal of totally different nature can evolve into another totally different one.
In a nutshell Evolution is said that a life form adapted to it's environment.
#255 to #209 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
I'm not sure if Christian or not but, I'm Christian, and I don't believe in Evolution per se, but I can understand how it could make sense to people who are hardcore evolutionists. I'm hung up on verses in the Bible that say "gain wisdom, gain understanding" or "seek the truth". If evolution has hardcore evidence and increases my understanding, God wouldn't have a problem with that, right? Since he told me to do so anyway? Again, I'm on the fence, because there's a whole thing of arguments for and against it, but I can't argue that credible scientists are pretty smart dudes and probably have a reason for believing a theory. There's my two cents.
#258 to #255 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
The only arguments that have been made against evolution are arguments based on bad science and logical fallacies. Some creationists try to build arguments out of childish word games, which they use to obfuscate the truth. If you think there's any strong case against evolution then you're an idiot.
#237 to #209 - christinanoelle (05/02/2012) [-]
But your side is stupid..?
But your side is stupid..?
#212 to #209 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
"I don't believe in Evolution because it doesn't make sense how an animal of totally different nature can evolve into another totally different one."

Science isn't based on intuition, just because it doesn't seem correct, doesn't mean it's not. Basically, evolution is an very gradual process fueled by natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. I could elaborate on this, but I doubt you'll listen or care.
#213 to #212 - kbxcn (05/02/2012) [-]
Is it really a problem is someone doesn't follow you?
I gave my side, you gave your side.
#200 to #194 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
I extend you the same courtesy.
#191 to #155 - rawrasaurus (05/02/2012) [-]
**rawrasaurus rolled a random image posted in comment #11 at Nicknames can be hurtful ** Okay, but where in the post did it say anything about Evolution? Just wondering where this came from.
#196 to #191 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
atheists brought it up first
#199 to #196 - rawrasaurus (05/02/2012) [-]
**rawrasaurus rolled a random image posted in comment #4214836 at FJ Pony Thread ** Let me get this straight anon, Atheist brought up how the Evolution "theory" is a fairy tale... I'm getting out while I still can.
#206 to #199 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
what the **** ....
+1
#169 to #155 - salmonofwar **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#172 to #169 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
hurr ******* durr. kill yourself
0
#175 to #172 - salmonofwar **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#176 to #175 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
That's called ad-hominem, my angry atheist friend. And your insults(if you can even call them that) aren't even funny
#214 to #176 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
Actually it is not an Ad-hominem, that would be if he attacked you personally. As a matter of fact you used a form of implied ad-hominem when you called him your "angry atheist friend". Actually you used a surprisingly diverse combination of fallacies in those two sentences as you also merged tu-quoque and argument from fallacy when you not just answered his criticism with criticism rather than an actual rebuttal but also based your criticism off of a perceived fallacy which you labelled incorrectly. Oh and finally, false cause as you assumed that there was a causal link between him believing in evolution and him being an atheist, two thing which do not necessarily lead to the other as one could believe in god and evolution simultaneously. Now that we have established that, would you care to try you hand at arguing with me? If you would I would be more than happy to oblige you.
#222 to #214 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
why would i bother arguing with someone who thinks he came from a monkey?
User avatar #239 to #222 - ukstriker (05/02/2012) [-]
Oh come on, don't give now. I believe in you and your ability to form a coherent, intelligent response to criticism even if everyone else here doesn't. You can do better than that.
#242 to #239 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
You said you have no opinion on evolution, how can I argue with you about it?
User avatar #250 to #242 - ukstriker (05/02/2012) [-]
Hmm, well you do have pretty good point there. Fair enough :). But please next time you argue someone make it like that comment, which is perfectly valid, rather than the first one it makes it harder for people to argue and people wont post wizard of Oz images to point out where your wrong. Good game, good day, etc,
#229 to #222 - ukstriker (05/02/2012) [-]
Where in that statement did I ever state that I thought that? Just because I pointed out the incoherency in your statement does not mean I stand on the opposite side of it, as a matter of fact I don't stand on either side. I simply offered to indulge your need to argue.
#228 to #222 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
oh look, ad hominem
User avatar #232 to #228 - ukstriker (05/02/2012) [-]
A little bit but, the statement as a whole has bigger problems. I'm getting to it don't worry :)

0
#226 to #222 - ukstriker has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #221 to #214 - ukstriker (05/02/2012) [-]
(Whoops, I was not signed in)
#217 to #214 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
bitch just got served
#195 to #176 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
where exactly did he insult you as a person in that response?
0
#180 to #176 - salmonofwar **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#183 to #180 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
biologists have never satisfactorily answered creationist questions about:

1. Genetic limits
2. Cyclical change
3. Irreducible complexity
4. Molecular isolation
5. Nonviability of transitional forms, and
6. The (rather spontaneous) fossil record
+3
#235 to #183 - salmonofwar **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#202 to #183 - krudd (05/02/2012) [-]
MFW I understood that.
MFW I understood that.
User avatar #165 to #155 - gameingwolf (05/02/2012) [-]
I swear i've read this somewhere before. I believe it had to do with Christianity and Atheism or something. Did you just copy that post and paste it here?
User avatar #161 to #155 - pukingrainbows (05/02/2012) [-]
Stopped reading at evolution, it wasn't even hinted at in the post. Where you got the idea to rant on about it, I won't hazard a guess.
#157 to #155 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
you need to calm down on your trolling there son, after 100 words it starts getting obvious
#159 to #157 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
hurr durr
#168 to #159 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
I apologize for thinking the best of your intelligence and assuming that you were simply a somewhat clever troll. Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may Joe Pesci have mercy on your soul.

#151 - xmatron (05/02/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

#154 to #151 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
Glasses for zoidburg.
#152 to #151 - xmatron (05/02/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

#145 - DjRicky (05/02/2012) [-]
**DjRicky rolled a random image posted in comment #82 at SMART **
User avatar #140 - pacoseago (05/02/2012) [-]
That's cool, but have you ever been so far even as decided to use go want to look more like?
#158 to #140 - campingisintents (05/02/2012) [-]
Wow, learn grammar idiot. That didn't even make sense
#238 to #158 - mhorn (05/02/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

0
#167 to #158 - legitturtle **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #163 to #158 - Zaivia (05/02/2012) [-]
Lol at you not getting the joke.
#147 to #140 - shadonic (05/02/2012) [-]
yes, evertim
User avatar #251 to #147 - ukstriker (05/02/2012) [-]
she ded.
User avatar #141 to #140 - JesseM (05/02/2012) [-]
Probably yes
User avatar #149 to #136 - Lostdemon (05/02/2012) [-]
no, it must go further, everything in that picture should be a shark
0
#139 to #136 - ixxamxxbatman has deleted their comment [-]
0
#132 - miamimonster has deleted their comment [-]
#131 - benedicto (05/02/2012) [-]
**benedicto rolled a random image posted in comment #41 at 4chan being silly. . . again. **
User avatar #137 to #131 - winners (05/02/2012) [-]
i bet he doesnt work either and no one knows why
-1
#133 to #131 - cakeisawesome **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #146 to #133 - brenton (05/02/2012) [-]
http://www.thedailybeast.com/features/2012/03/trayvon-martin.html
Pretty sure everyone knows that dude by now...
User avatar #135 to #133 - fernandopolis (05/02/2012) [-]
pics or it didnt happen
#129 - ffforeveralone (05/02/2012) [-]
**ffforeveralone rolled a random image posted in comment #100 at Strange Cars ** < Dat science.
#128 - thethread (05/02/2012) [-]
Comment Picture

#127 - Deception (05/02/2012) [-]
**Deception rolled a random image posted in comment #180 at papercraft ** science
#126 - anonymous (05/02/2012) [-]
This is exactly what working in a research lab is actually like
#124 - wonderkid (05/02/2012) [-]
epic gif is epic
epic gif is epic
#142 to #124 - whiteknighthobie (05/02/2012) [-]
+1 for Joe Adams' punt return in Fayetteville. Just got drafted to the panthers.
0
#121 - whalefister has deleted their comment [-]
#116 - twatmissile (05/02/2012) [-]
**twatmissile rolled a random image posted in comment #77 at GTP **
quick! back to the laboratory!
#115 - grundo (05/02/2012) [-]
**grundo rolled a random image posted in comment #127 at I am your Father ** My science lab
 Friends (0)