Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #250 - junkmanrs (08/22/2013) [+] (2 replies)
Funny how all the comments that are against evolution are made by anons.
User avatar #230 - goodnewseveryone (08/22/2013) [+] (4 replies)
Believe what you want, but wa can all agree that Richard Dawkins is a dick
User avatar #253 to #230 - ireallylikepotatoe ONLINE (08/22/2013) [-]
I agree with this comment.
#187 - zenrath (08/22/2013) [+] (25 replies)
Thats because they date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils.

Carbon dating? Frozen mammoths have had their age tested to be one year, and the food still frozen in their mouth to be a couple of thousands of years off.

Richard dawkins clearly doesnt know his **** , or hes just ignorant because he strokes himself hard to the thought of being a cult figure.
#226 to #187 - hellfiazz (08/22/2013) [-]
They do NOT date that way. Clearly you don't understand dating.

Yes, carbon dating can be inaccurate to a few thousand years. But when you're dealing with something that takes millions of years, 1000 years do. Not. Matter. And even if they did, carbon dating is one of the MOST inaccurate forms of dating. There are far more accurate ways of dating.
#134 - ookichinchindesu (08/22/2013) [+] (4 replies)
Cool story, I have a question did they grow lungs first or what? okie dokie then looks like evolution is already kind of getting **** on, and none of you want to pay attention for your fear of judgement.
#190 to #134 - grapefruity (08/22/2013) [-]
No, lungs were not as refined as they are now when evolution began. For example, bugs have a tracheal system, basically pipes, which directly transfer oxygen to the muscles and other organs, no blood (And thus, energy) required. However, this limits their size, as they can't absorb large amounts of oxygen with the system. Bacteria don't even need that, and merely defuse oxygen into their small forms, no organ required...

So to answer your question, no. They didn't 'grow' lungs. They would have been a bacteria or small creature which had a simplified way of getting air to it's body first, and it would evolve more complicated organs as time when by, and generations passed.

Man, science is interesting...
#21 - anonymous (08/22/2013) [+] (8 replies)
Darwin said evolution is a just a theory that can not be proved. Why do other scientists leave this out.?

You tell me.
#58 to #21 - shadowvision (08/22/2013) [-]
This is true for EVERYTHING you ******* , including gravity, germs, and atoms.
User avatar #182 - lyestcer (08/22/2013) [-]
If I ever get my hands on a time machine, I'll go back in time, kill a few million organisms, then transfer them to a different time period.
User avatar #157 - yuukoku (08/22/2013) [+] (2 replies)
It can't be proved or disproved.

I mean, theoretically it can, but we all know that it's real. It's just like how it's still considered a theory. We have to consider it a theory until it's proven. If we don't, then we're jumping to conclusions and we can't do that in science or else we'll make further mistakes. However, there will always be an argument against it because there will always be the idea of God. However, that's just a theory, too, so there's no disproving the idea of Creationism.

It's a whole conundrum that's reached a stalemate.
User avatar #158 to #157 - zuereuz (08/22/2013) [-]
evolution is classed as a fact and it has been for a while
User avatar #87 - strifethethird (08/22/2013) [+] (1 reply)
There have been Fossils technically found in the wrong date order, but it was due too earthquakes and avalanches.
User avatar #80 - shiifter (08/22/2013) [+] (16 replies)
But.... Wouldn't that just prove that they were around back then?

I mean, if people thought that a certain dinosaur only existed in the paleolithic era, and then found the same fossil from another era, they would assume that the dinosaur existed in that era too.

You can't disprove evolution because it doesn't allow itself to be disproven. Every time you prove a piece of it wrong, that just changes the description to one that allows your discovery to work.

Now that doesn't mean evolution is what really happened, I'm not even going to touch that one, since you people like to argue about it a lot, but this post doesn't make much sense.
User avatar #100 to #80 - Deeticky (08/22/2013) [-]
You make a good point and you're obviously intelligent. I do need to correct one thing you said.

There were no dinosaurs in the Paleolithic era. In the Paleolithic era, you could find humanity's ancestors and early humans alongside many creatures, but not dinosaurs. The Paleolithic era began 2.6 million years ago, and ended 12,000 years ago.

The last of the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which ended the Mesozoic era and began the Cenozoic era.
#71 - bobbysilk (08/22/2013) [+] (1 reply)
To my fellow Christians getting butt hurt by this post...
User avatar #74 to #71 - lordgeneral (08/22/2013) [-]
I've always believed in a higher plane of sentient existence, though I still believe in both creation and evolution. I like to say that there's a reason we update java.
#36 - danruaul (08/22/2013) [+] (2 replies)
I don't think this is a good argument. "Living fossils" are animals, like the coelocanth, are species that have not changed much by selective pressures and so it is like finding a fossil out of order. This could hypothetically occur with any species.
I don't know if Dawkins actually said this, or if it needs to be in context, but I worry about the misconceptions it could cause if it's taken at face value.
User avatar #20 - SirSheepy ONLINE (08/22/2013) [+] (7 replies)
Too bad carbon dating is based on assumptions and isn't as accurate as they make it out to be.
User avatar #77 to #20 - ecomp (08/22/2013) [-]
It's less and less accurate the further back you go. That's why we can pinpoint days that something happened in the last 3000 years or so, but when you get into things like dinosaurs, the estimates vary widely, but are pretty accurate in the large scope of things. Ex: We know that Tyrannosaurus Rex lived anywhere from 65 - 67.5 million years ago, while we know that something like the Wooly mammoth lived anywhere from 150,000 – 4,000 years ago.
#267 - Chitzu (08/22/2013) [-]
Show me an evidence.
#260 - Dwarf (08/22/2013) [+] (1 reply)
**Dwarf rolled a random image posted in comment #8 at Ninja dot ** I'm not trying to be one of those guys. It's just that I really don't know the answer, but people use the argument "if people evolved from monkeys, then why do monkeys still exist" against evolution. I'm not asking why the monkeys haven't evolved, but why aren't any other steps between still living?
User avatar #228 - askafj (08/22/2013) [+] (3 replies)
How come God stop doing things ever since mobile phones and cameras came around?
I mean, there haven't been any raining frogs, no water-over-the-whole-earth thingy, no nothing.
If you believe in God so much and you think you have so much evidence for God, then please tell me why he has stop doing things?
User avatar #106 - lemurlemur (08/22/2013) [-]
uh oh. implications of religion=offended people
#29 - adrenalinbbq (08/22/2013) [-]
I feel anyone with an argument relating to this content should watch this.
 Friends (0)