Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#250 - junkmanrs
Reply +2
(08/22/2013) [-]
Funny how all the comments that are against evolution are made by anons.
#280 to #250 - randomuserything
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Because if you show an opinion that's not for evolution people thumb you down and call you retarded
#306 to #280 - souperior
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
>Funnyjunk
>Opinion

Lets say if you tried making a weapon on dead rising 2 with this combination, you get a ton of rage to kill zombies with or something.
#230 - goodnewseveryone
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Believe what you want, but wa can all agree that Richard Dawkins is a dick
#234 to #230 - anon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Presuming that we all think that makes you a dick.
#235 to #234 - goodnewseveryone
Reply -3
(08/22/2013) [-]
how is he not?
#245 to #230 - alarmdemon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Did you see that Bananza episode too?
#253 to #230 - ireallylikepotatoe
Reply +2
(08/22/2013) [-]
I agree with this comment.
#187 - zenrath
Reply -3
(08/22/2013) [-]
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.
#206 to #187 - anon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Butt hurt.

Also the difference is. He clearly does know his ****. The only ignorant people are people such as yourself. Evolution is fact. Deal with it.
#231 to #206 - thrshrpnts
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
well although the evidence for evolution is over-whelming, it is still technically considered a theory, so it isn't entirely fact.
#213 to #206 - zenrath
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Lay me down some facts/evidence. And i'll counter.
#247 to #187 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
To everyone reading this, look at this ****.

"Theres evidence"

"Theres so much evidence!"

Yet none is presented here. Comon guys, im ready, own me, pwn me with your magical fairy mother nature gia.
#226 to #187 - hellfiazz
Reply +2
(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.
#246 to #226 - zenrath
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Such as?
#249 to #248 - zenrath
Reply -2
(08/22/2013) [-]
Thats all with the assumption that the earth IS INFACT BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.

Google petrified trees, counters the logic of dating.

You cant build "facts" from assumptions. This is where the human races fails, so ******* badly at logic. Its a theory cool, but clearly nobody takes it like that.
#251 to #249 - hellfiazz
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
I just can't deal with this level of stupid.

They use the dating methods, that have error margins that don't even matter. They find that the oldest rocks they can find are roughly 4.5 billion years old. I don't see how there's any fault in this logic.

Also, I can't see the problem with these petrified trees. They're just fossilised trees.
#252 to #251 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Alright son, listen here.

1. The dating methods, they work only if the object they're dating is 20+ million years old or something. How do you know its 20+ million years or more in the first place?
In theory the maths is usually pretty sound, its pretty good, but its built off assumptions.

2. Petrified trees, they exist through multiple layers of the earth, layers dated to be seperately thousands if not millions of years apart.
Layers are formed over long periods of time, such an example would be forests decomposing over many years and forming layers, producing coal. Petrified trees counter that, their existance is unexplained, go ahead, try find a paper on it, hint: Use google scholar.

Dont pussy out like a little bitch use the "Youre too stupid" or "THERES SO MUCH EVIDENCE" defence, shut the **** up and actually show me, or be a man and admit to not actually knowing. Know what you believe or just stay out of it.
#255 to #252 - hellfiazz
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Alright. Where on Earth did you learn that it has to be 20+ million years to work? Uranium lead is 1 million+. They use that for stuff they predict happened before 1 million years. And that's what they use for the really old crap. There are several other methods that are used for shorter times. An example would be potassium-argon dating, which is for over a few thousands years.

And petrified trees. The trees die. They fall to the ground. Sediment builds up around them. The sediment becomes more and more compressed over time, eventually become rock. However, because they are 3 dimensional, they would occupy the space of the multiple layers that have built up AROUND them after they died.
#262 to #255 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Also you asked where i "learnt" that, from your link. "Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable."

I also would like to apologize for my crappy explanations and terrible spelling. Im tired.

Im cool with it all being a theory, but dont tell me its fact, i know what the data is built from, and its built from assumptions. I give credit where credit is due, and the maths and theory behind the dating techniques is actually super great, but its all based on an assumption, so the assumption must hold true for everything else to be true, and the assumption is the part which is a complete "i want to believe" guess.
#273 to #262 - hellfiazz
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
The 20 million years thing means for every 2.5 billion years, there's an inaccuracy of 20 million years.
#277 to #273 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Yes? thats what im saying.
#259 to #255 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Even 1 million years old is an assumption!
Argon dating is full of ****, i think it was mt.saint helens they tested, after it errupted, so we historically know what the date should be, e.g. 20 years. it gave some complete ******** data back. (Lava or w/e resets the levels back to 0)

Your explanation of petrified trees shows you have a lovely imagination, well done. Dirt and rock doesnt clump around it, until it is also a rock, it requires minerals and water. The idea is that, the petrified trees should have no been able to be whole, upright and in one piece if it happend gradually. Its a ******* mystery, and if you have that mystery ******* up the earths age data, then all your "facts" automatically become assumptions and ridiculous guesses based off good maths.
#272 to #259 - marioauditore
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
I don't get it. Why would you have to assume anything? Most of dating methods are based on the rate of decay of isotopes. That not an assumption, it's fact. You don't need to assume that earth is more than 1 million years old, you do the math and it shows.
#275 to #272 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Thats assuming their decay wasnt reset, started at 0 with no outside influences, and more factors (Depends on the techniques).

Anyways, ive seen huge errors, multiple times for all the major dating techniques, its not reliable. (If you're genuinely interested i can try to start finding references)
#294 to #275 - marioauditore
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I'm interested on references, yes. I know archeaology students that run those kind of datations daily. And the results are pretty damn accurate according to them. But carbon 14 it's not used so much anymore. Are you sure you aren't quoting old data?
#295 to #294 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
The last time i looked into this, was a fairly long time ago.
Old data doesnt matter, the stubborn belief hasnt changed or been updated for decades.

As for references, which technique do you want me to find? We've gotten the popular carbon dating and argon dating out of the way.

The references are a bonus finding anyways, since it is all built on the assumptions of the earth being millions/billions of years old.
#296 to #295 - marioauditore
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I can't remember the name of the techniques. However lets discuss for a moment this "assumption" you say the methods are based on. As far as i know the first experiments on this subject were based on math only and they didn't assume anything. They were very inaccurate, sure, but the method is being improved over the years to put into account more variable and the margin of error has been constantly reduced. We also have other data we can rely on to determine the accuracy of the techniques such as stratifications, and materials from already known civilizations. For example there are garbage dumps used for thousands of years next to ancient inhabited settlements that are stratificated, so you can try to use a technique of datation, then confront the results with other layers as well as with the history of the actual garbage (bronze, iron, imported pottery, cereals that showed up in the area in a certain century, or millennia etc). If the calculations turn out to be accurate, then you don't need to make assumption for older ages, you just find something way older and apply the same method.
#297 to #296 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yes, correct. And our history only goes back afew thousand years. Anything else is an assumption.

Do they know how many layers of strata the earth started with? No. So you cant just measure the size/length of the strata we know, then account for each one. + it doesnt take into account other factors, for instance meteors or world wide flood.
#298 to #297 - marioauditore
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Well, the assumption here seems to be "if the calculations worked so well on confirmable ages, there is no known reason to not work the same for the unconfirmable ones. Unless the isotopes used to decay at super speed until humans started to record their history, and then they slowed down to mess with them."
I know you can't just count the strata, it's only useful to say what came before what. But i think we can at least assume that earth started with no layers at all? Unless we want to assume a god deliberately putting layers from the start, and that's like discussing if god gave adam and eve a navel.
#299 to #298 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I apologise but im not sure what youre saying there.

1. Isotopes are invalid since it needs millions/billions but we only have thousands.
2. Strata & Layers dont take into account alternatives, theyre not a reliable tool, i also think the maths isnt based upon historically known strata.
#302 to #299 - marioauditore
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
1. They currently use isotopes for datations up to 100.000 years. Also they can determine the age of organic materials between 50.000 e i 100 years old (if it's not contaminated).
2. Strata are reliable for relative datations. Even when infiltrations or contaminations happen they're easly spotted through context.
#304 to #302 - zenrath
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Imma do some reading then. Can you give me these techniques which work from 0 - 100,000 years?
#134 - ookichinchindesu
Reply -9
(08/22/2013) [-]
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.
#160 to #134 - annogram
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
what even are even you even saying...even
#240 to #134 - thebrownydestroyer **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Do you even know what you're talking about?
#190 to #134 - grapefruity
Reply +2
(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...
#307 to #190 - ookichinchindesu
Reply -1
(08/24/2013) [-]
lol I was pretty tired when i posted that, but I don't take any of it back. I think I would have just been a bit more respectful . But all it takes is a little digging to completely debunk evolution (sigh in my opinion,(not really it's a fact)), but i took one tiny snip-it from something similar I heard and shat it out in that one comment
#21 - anon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Darwin said evolution is a just a theory that can not be proved. Why do other scientists leave this out.?

You tell me.
#22 to #21 - anon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Gravity is also a theory, but I don't see people flying out of windows
#30 to #22 - Warzonebeta
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
AHHHHHH HELP IM FLYING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE GROUND FUUUCCCKKKK YOUUUU GRAVITY!
#25 to #21 - sszxcxzcvzxcv
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Darwin could have said his dick was the missing link, but it isn't really relevant nowadays is it?
#32 to #21 - traceirving
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Tim Minchin: Americans & Evolution
#35 to #32 - traceirving
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Just for 1:20 into the video
#23 to #21 - bronywhat
Reply +2
(08/22/2013) [-]
Because other scientists know a lot more now than Darwin did back in his day.

Congrats anon, you tempted me into replying.
#37 to #21 - danruaul
Reply +2
(08/22/2013) [-]
Darwin did not know about DNA. Now days, with comparisons between the genomes of animals, a lot is concluded with high probability of being right.
#58 to #21 - shadowvision
Reply +2
(08/22/2013) [-]
This is true for EVERYTHING you *******, including gravity, germs, and atoms.
#229 - pepemex
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
#182 - lyestcer
Reply +1
(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.
#157 - yuukoku
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
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.
#158 to #157 - zuereuz
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
evolution is classed as a fact and it has been for a while
#293 to #158 - yuukoku
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Evolution is factual. If it weren't, then why would penicillin stop working if you take it too much? That's just one very good example.

The thing is, we're never going to be 100% sure of anything. There's still a lot of people that believe that humans were created by God and you can't exactly prove them wrong because there is no proving or disproving God.
#113 - Bacula
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
#87 - strifethethird
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
There have been Fossils technically found in the wrong date order, but it was due too earthquakes and avalanches.
#102 to #87 - SiegK
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
I think he means carbon dating, not where it was found via placement in the Earth.
#82 - teenytinyspider
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
#80 - shiifter
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
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.
#92 to #80 - Turmoil
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
If we find a fossil of a creature and it dates earlier than what is believed to be the creatures evolutionary ancestor then that would disprove evolution.

However, you will not be able to find a fossil of any creature on earth where it shows up in a time period prior to it's evolutionary ancestor.
#94 to #92 - shiifter
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
But if it showed up prior to it's evolutionary ancestor, that would just prove that it was around before that creature, and that it's supposed evolutionary ancestor actually evolved from it, and then went extinct before it did.
#95 to #94 - Turmoil
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
I don't think you know how evolution works, the evolutionary ancestor goes "extinct" because it has evolved. It's not that the creature ceases to exist it has merely changed shape and form over millions of years to the point when you look at the ancestral creature from 10million years ago it is so different from the new creature they are given different names.

In the event we find a creatures fossil prior to its evolutionary ancestor that means those two creatures could not possibly have ever evolved from one another.
#96 to #95 - shiifter
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
So then it just evolved from something else.
#97 to #96 - Turmoil
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
This is possible but now there is a hole in evolution, it either needs to be filled with a new and more correct ancestor lest evolution be proven wrong.
#98 to #97 - shiifter
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
No, we can just say that the ancestor evolved from the creature, and then went extinct due to climate change.

Or am i arguing in circles?
#116 to #98 - Turmoil
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
You're just using an excuse is all. Let me clarify.

We know species X lived in 10,000 BC due to the fossil records. We match species X to its ancestral species which lived 1 million years ago. Sometime in the future scientists begin to discover species X fossils in a part of the crust that would date them to 10million years ago, as well as still finding the fossils in the 10,000 bc era.

This example, were it to occur, proves evolution over time does NOT happen. But this has never happened.
#120 to #116 - shiifter
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
You condescending jackass.

That just means that the ancestral species isn't really it's ancestral species, but instead, a similar one. Evolution doesn't go under.
#166 to #120 - Turmoil
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
And now we're back at the start again, if a new ancestor cannot be found that is better than the previous one which was already proven incorrect the validity of evolution must be called into question. If a new one and more acceptable ancestral species is found then all is well and science is working as intended.
#291 to #166 - shiifter
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Who said it had to be better than the previous one?
#301 to #291 - Turmoil
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
"Better" In that it fits in the evolutionary time-line of the species in a more correct way than the previous one.
#305 to #301 - shiifter
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
So what if it's a less correct way?
#104 to #98 - Deeticky
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
I think you're both right in a way. If the fossil record showed that we were wrong about a creature's evolutionary tree, it would poke a massive hole in the theory of evolution surrounding that specific creature and further research would surely be needed, but the larger theory of evolution would remain mostly unchanged.

Now, if we were to find a lot of similar holes, the theory would be in trouble.
#110 to #80 - anon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
It's not talking about the same fossil, it's talking about different ones.

Say there are three fossils of lineage X: A, B, and C. If Fossil A was found to date before Fossil B, we would also expect to find that Fossil B dates before Fossil C. If, however, Fossil C was dated to a time before Fossil B, then the theory would be disproven. If lineage X truly evolved from A to B to C, then Fossil C would never come before Fossil B.
#100 to #80 - Deeticky
Reply +1
(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.
#101 to #100 - shiifter
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Oh. Thanks.
#71 - bobbysilk
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
To my fellow Christians getting butt hurt by this post...
#74 to #71 - lordgeneral
Reply +1
(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
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
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.
#130 to #36 - chaosnazo
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
see comment #56
#131 to #130 - danruaul
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
thanks
#20 - SirSheepy ONLINE
Reply -8
(08/22/2013) [-]
Too bad carbon dating is based on assumptions and isn't as accurate as they make it out to be.
#28 to #20 - adrenalinbbq
Reply -2
(08/22/2013) [-]
Then you'll LOVE this video proving that carbon dating ancient bones doesn't work. No, I'm serious. This really supports this theory.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7vhDserscA
#40 to #28 - SirSheepy ONLINE
Reply -2
(08/22/2013) [-]
Carbon dating is based on the assumption the carbon values of prehistoric life are similar to modern life, which is a pretty bold assumption.
#274 to #40 - adrenalinbbq
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Haaa.... Look at this guy's name. So fitting.
#202 to #40 - RandomAnonGuy
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
No it's not you twat, it's based on the proportions of the isotope and its decay product, and the rate at which that thing decays. If you had 50/50 of each then you'd know it'd been one half life.
#27 to #20 - adrenalinbbq
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#91 to #20 - popeflatus
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
There are over 40 types of radio-dating that can be used depending on how old the sample is.
#77 to #20 - ecomp
Reply +1
(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.
#223 - anon
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
I'm probably gonna get massive thumbs down for this, but hell.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html
Don't just accept everything "scientists" throw at you without thinking objectively about it. **** is often faked, and although I believe in evolution, there ARE some massive hoaxes happening in the carbon dating field. Don't be ignorant.
#219 - infinitereaper
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
We bitch, moan, cry, and whine over the past but what we should really be worried about is the future.   
   
Who cares about things like god or the scientific origins of the universe?   
   
We should be focusing on the big things, like the survival of our species, immortality, discovering the secrets of the universe, and most importantly, virtual reality video games.
We bitch, moan, cry, and whine over the past but what we should really be worried about is the future.

Who cares about things like god or the scientific origins of the universe?

We should be focusing on the big things, like the survival of our species, immortality, discovering the secrets of the universe, and most importantly, virtual reality video games.
#79 - lordraine
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
That's an extremely unscientific thing to say. One fossil being out of order wouldn't overturn the theory.

This is either fake or Dawkins abandoned his reason just to try and take a cheap shot at religion.
#81 to #79 - bokkos
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
... I don't think you understand how these things work.
#93 to #79 - Turmoil
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
Yes it would? If you let go of a pencil and it floated away instead of falling to the ground well, that would mean our current theory of gravity is wrong. Same goes for evolution.
#189 to #93 - lordraine
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
No it wouldn't. It would be an exception that we don't understand. I studied geology and archeology. If we found something out of order, we'd just assume some geologic action we don't understand (yet) did it, and move on while making note of it.

It would take more than one fossil in one place being out of order for people to throw out the entire theory of evolution.
#300 to #189 - Turmoil
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Geological action cannot move a fossil from one geological time line to another, if for instance the entire band is out of place then yes I would agree its a geological thing but if one species of fossil is in two different bands then no.
#16 - merpdederp
Reply 0
(08/22/2013) [-]
xD
#10 - anon
Reply 0
(08/21/2013) [-]
Fossils are often discovered in the "wrong" layer, sometimes even in reverse order to how evolutionary theory says they should be. So no, this quote is bogus.