Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#79 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
THEORY, THEORY YOU ******* MORONS.

EVEN SCIENTISTS HAVE ACCEPTED THAT IT IS A THEORY BECAUSE THERE'S POOLS AND GAPS IN THE INFORMATION.

IT IS NOT CALLED THE LAW OF EVOLUTION FOR NO REASON.
#114 to #79 - misfitsftw
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
gravity is also "just a theory" so why dont you do us all a favour and float the **** away?

-paraphrased tim minchin, couldnt remember exact quote but you get the idea.
#163 to #114 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
No the same anon, I kinda dislike how he yelled for no reason, but anyway, I'll answer:

I believe in intelligent falling. I cannot float away, because the intelligent being my mind cannot comprehend is pushing me back every time I try to leave Earth.
#154 to #114 - AnomynousUser
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
I wanted to use that quote

I'm going to go to my pity corner and blast his Dark Side song...
#88 to #79 - lolfire
Reply +2
(02/10/2014) [-]
I really hate how "show anonymous comments" doesn't stay unticked.
I really hate how "show anonymous comments" doesn't stay unticked.
#82 to #79 - toadkillerdog
Reply +2
(02/10/2014) [-]
except for the fact that almost nothing can be referred to as a "law" in science. What people like you insist "theory" means is actually a hypothesis, a theory has to have a lot of evidence for it and little to no evidence against it. Nothing short of direct time travel would elevate evolution to the level of law, but to say that means its wrong is absolutely moronic.
#81 to #79 - testaburger
+11
has deleted their comment [-]
#319 to #81 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
that description isn't really correct.

science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
#180 to #81 - chimpaflimp
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, I don't speak science. Can you translate that into terms a 15 year old would understand, please?
I'm sorry, I don't speak science. Can you translate that into terms a 15 year old would understand, please?
#216 to #180 - finalrendition
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Essentially, "theory" doesn't mean a guess
#75 - lastkingofx
Reply +45
(02/10/2014) [-]
We get it.
#347 to #75 - anon
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Why doesn't anyone post **** like this when someone posts the same [tippin intensifies] picture?

****, that thing even gets top rated comment when it has nothing to do with atheism, and even slightly frustrates religious people
#109 to #75 - hasinvadedyou
Reply +6
(02/10/2014) [-]
why did someone disassemble that laser disc?
#99 to #75 - angrybarts [OP]
Reply +11
(02/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#74 - tacotrainone
Reply -3
(02/10/2014) [-]
i don't mean to break the joke, but lots of creationist scientists can publish scientific papers on other things.
Before you call me a creationist faggot, im athiest, just trying to be fair
#128 to #74 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Yes, about things not linked to origin, because "God did it" isn't a valid theory.
#72 - alwaysreadthetags
Reply +7
(02/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#65 - improbable
Reply +17
(02/10/2014) [-]
**improbable rolled a random image posted in comment #9 at people that annoy you ** scientific discoveries versus morals.
#139 to #65 - ecalycptus
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
You rolled my image!
#78 to #65 - ubercookieboy
Reply +4
(02/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#60 - trojanmannn
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
we need to ******* relax with this
#44 - mytwocents
+132
has deleted their comment [-]
#52 to #44 - Blargosnarf
Reply +215
(02/10/2014) [-]
I swear that guy gets more orange each time the gif loops.
#308 to #52 - spartansquirrel
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
I find he only gets so orange then just stops at that level. But why is he orange in the first place?
#77 to #52 - houseofscarlet
Reply +9
(02/10/2014) [-]
Oompa Loompa Doopa-dee Doo...
#55 to #52 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
i like how your idiotic comment has more thumbs than his thoughtfull reply.
#226 to #55 - Blargosnarf
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
Don't worry, the irony is not lost for me.
#84 to #55 - mytwocents
+10
has deleted their comment [-]
#71 to #55 - garaichu
Reply +2
(02/10/2014) [-]
It IS FUNNYjunk, not Thoughtfuljunk.
#168 to #71 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
>implying **** here is funny
#40 - include
Reply +5
(02/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#63 to #40 - moggz ONLINE
Reply +2
(02/10/2014) [-]
Seriously. to this day that part cracks me up. just the way he smacks the first kid in the back of the head. Still just too ******* funny.
#31 - mrwalkerfour
Reply +7
(02/10/2014) [-]
most annoying part for me:


"HUR DUR DIS GUY HAS PHD AND HE IS CREATIONIST THEREFORE CREATIONISM IS LEGITIMATE"
#29 - SteyrAUG
Reply +10
(02/10/2014) [-]
And in this post we see people getting butthurt that someone believes something that they don't. Even though it doesn't affect them at all.
#62 to #29 - angelwithashotgun
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
Except extremist religions tend to extort to terrorism to spread their message
Except extremist religions tend to extort to terrorism to spread their message
#67 to #62 - ninjaroo ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
I was not expecting that.
#68 to #67 - angelwithashotgun
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
I know
I know
#32 to #29 - vladhellsing ONLINE
Reply +4
(02/10/2014) [-]
But it does, because these people go on to educate the masses in falsehoods and vote.
#34 to #32 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
If you're so concerned with keeping the vote grounded on fact then I would suggest you take a look at how political campaigns are run in america. It isn't religion that's ruining that.
#38 to #34 - vladhellsing ONLINE
Reply +6
(02/10/2014) [-]
The lack of scientific literacy means people are incapable of making informed decisions. This applies to more than just presidential/political elections.
#41 to #38 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
So if I told you that I'm a chiristan and that I believe that Jesus dies for our sins, would you say that I am incapable of making an informed decision?
#46 to #41 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
It would just mean you are easily influenced.
#48 to #46 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Well, then I would continue on to say that I am 7 credits away form my bachelor's in mechanical engineering, and that I actually affirmed my faith using the laws of the universe that bill nye seems to think can only exist if there is no god.
#403 to #48 - testaburger
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#404 to #403 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
You got me there, did a pretty poor job of following what I believe in didn't I? Guess i'll have to work on that.

For what it's worth, I learned a lot about myself from our discussion, and I appreciate you taking the time to read every comment thoroughly even though I can guess they probably made you want to tear your hair out.
#405 to #404 - testaburger
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#83 to #48 - testaburger
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#101 to #83 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Well, according to the big bang theory, everything in the universe started out as hydrogen shortly after the big bang. Using the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe is continually attempting to get to a state of maximum entropy, and that the entropy of the universe can never decrease, only increase. A bunch of hydrogen floating around at the background temperature of the universe (about 4 K) and 0 pa pressure is at a very high entropy state.

In order for hydrogen to reach the pressure and temperature required to start fusion, it has to be heated and compressed, which decreases its entropy. This is totally okay in the current universe, because entropy is eventually lost to the radiation produced by the star, which in turn starts other stars in the process. But for the first stars to be formed, there would have to be a decrease in the entropy of the universe.

For this entropy decrease to happen, there has to be an external force. The law of universal gravitation states that the hydrogen atoms would likely start to group up around one another, but in order for the process to create the heat required to cause fusion, it would have to happen extremely rapidly. Otherwise, the energy generated by the compression would just radiate off as heat. Seeing as the gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms is probably below 10^-9 n unless they are already extremely close, there is no way for the process to happen quickly.

The compression of the hydrogen is also not supported by the second law of thermodynamics, because as pressure increases as temperature remains the same, entropy decreases.

So what you have is a bunch of situations that could only occur if there was an external force, and since the law of universal gravitation does not support the initial creation of stars, that leaves us with a higher power starting things off.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. -Arthur Conan Doyle
#384 to #101 - testaburger
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#391 to #384 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
So what you're saying is that in my 2000 characters, I have dis-proven the second law of thermodynamics, because that's what "we don't know" would mean in this situation.

Saying the second law of thermodynamics can be broken is like saying gravity is just a conceptual force that can be counteracted if we think about it really really hard.

If you don't want to believe in god, that's fine. I'm not telling you you have to. You asked me to elaborate on how I used science to affirm my faith, and I told you. If you think that my logic is flawed, then I suggest you publish your information on how to break the second law of thermodynamics and go get your nobel prize, because that would be an automatic win.
#392 to #391 - testaburger
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#394 to #392 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
So what you're saying, is that it's stupid to believe in god, but you believe that an extra-universal, supernatural, un-measurable, and un-explainable force existed near the inception of the universe that started fusion required to create stars.

Well I guess now you understand how I can believe in god.
#395 to #394 - testaburger
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#396 to #395 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Funny thing is, I've never stated anything about your beliefs either, because I don't care what you believe and it doesn't affect me in the slightest. You, on the other hand, seem to have a "no one can believe anything but what I believe" complex.

I think you're just mad that I managed to take away your only arguing point and make you argue from the side of "we don't know have faith it exists"

5/10 troll. Made me write down what i believe in. I've seen better.
#397 to #396 - testaburger
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#398 to #397 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
That's the claim i'm making. It is impossible for a natural force to act from outside the universe, because in order for there to be force there has to be mass. Mass does not exist outside the universe.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. -Arthur Conan Doyle


And, for the third time, I'm not here to convince you to believe in god. You asked, I answered. Then you went on a personal crusade to disprove my belief even though:

www.funnyjunk.com/BILL+BILL+BILL+BILL+NYE+THE+SCIENCE+GUY/funny-pictures/5012818/29#29
#399 to #398 - testaburger
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#400 to #399 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Omnipotence is omnipotence. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

>implying people's beliefs don't affect me in any way
elaborate
#401 to #400 - testaburger
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#402 to #401 - SteyrAUG
0
(02/11/2014) [-]
I believe that god created the universe that we live in through a series of complex differential equations that were set up in a way that would bring the potential of life. I believe that the laws of the universe were written by god and can only be discovered, not modified or broken. I also believe that god sent his son Jesus to save us from ourselves and end the hatred we have for each other here on planet earth, and that it is my goal as his follower to help end that hatred. And if I can't do it through love and compassion, I'll take apathy.
#167 to #101 - doctorpibber
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Whether or not there is or isn't a higher power is open to debate. However, if you are going to slap the label of Yahweh, Allah or Vishnu etc onto it then there is a massive fallacy. Belief in a higher power can be justified like you are doing, but if you extend that into man made superstitions or try to turn that concept into an anthropomorphic ideology, that's where the problem lies. I guess the question is, do you have faith in a higher power, or are you religious?
#170 to #167 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
I think the answer I've been trying to get at with this whole thing is:

What's it matter to you?
#131 to #101 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
The solution here is that because the universe is expanding it keeps getting shifted out of equilibrium, and in the drive to reach a new equilibrium state, you can get pockets of order occurring without violating the second law, because the maximum allowable entropy also keeps increasing.
#148 to #131 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
I realize now that I was incorrect in saying that compressing hydrogen was unfeasible. Due to the law of universal gravitation, it could happen. However, no matter how high the pressure gets, there needs to be high temperature and pressure for fusion to start, and in order for there to be a high temperature, there has to be a rapid change in pressure.

And yes, there can be pockets of order while the rest of the universe's disorder increases, these pockets of order are called stars. However, in the beginning when everything was disorder, and that's the state the universe wants to be in, there has to be a way that the conditions for fusion can be attained, and the law of universal gravitation is not a feasible solution.
#386 to #148 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
In the beginning there wasn't just disorder because the universe is energy neutral.
#58 to #48 - vladhellsing ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Nye never said that, he just affirms that a god isn't necessary.
#42 to #41 - ninjaroo ONLINE
Reply +3
(02/10/2014) [-]
No, but if you continued with "And I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a lie" I'd think you're retarded.
#47 to #42 - SteyrAUG
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
So what if I told you that thinking that most christians out there don't actually believe the world is 6000 years old, and that ken ham speaks for a minority of the christian population? Because, quite frankly, we think he's an idiot too.
#76 to #47 - anon
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Oh, also on the fact, that it doesn't affect anyone:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States
could be worth a read
#57 to #47 - soloman
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
You idiot, this post is about creationism in the first place, and even Bill Nye himself points out in his opening statement that billions of people are religious, but that creationism is a unique belief of a very small minority. This isn't religion vs. science, it's creationism vs. evolution. So if you think creationism is stupid too, your initial comment is very out of place.
#51 to #47 - ninjaroo ONLINE
Reply -2
(02/10/2014) [-]
And what if I told you that nobody gives two ***** about what moderate Christians believe and that every time someone criticises religion they're referring to the **** you've already rejected?
And that thinking anything other than that is also retarded?
#54 to #51 - SteyrAUG
Reply -2
(02/10/2014) [-]
Then what if I told you that no one give two ***** about what moderate atheists believe and that every time someone criticizes atheism we're referring to those fat neck-bearded assholes who think they're so ******* cool because they pick fights with people over something that doesn't affect their personal lives at all? The same type of people that post about the most retarded atheism vs. Christianity debate that's ever happened: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye. That's the point i'm highlighting here.
#56 to #54 - ninjaroo ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
The thing is that extremists do effect our lives. You've never heard about kids getting banished from their community because they're atheist? You can't live in some parts of America solely based on that. There is nowhere in America where the entire community will view you as satan incarnate just for being Christian. What about the religious push to get creatonism in schools, and the pro-life movement having a significant portion of people motivated only by their religion? These decisions have tangible effects on everyones lives and should be approached with logic and empathy, not a bible. You're comparing euphoric neckbeards on the internet to the westboro baptist church.
#61 to #56 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
So do you really think that those religious groups are gonna be able to push creationism in and evolution out? Because I grew up in Idaho, one of those states that you refer to as "impossible to live in if you're not atheist" and for some reason, I didn't see a bible from the time I was in kindergarten to the time I graduated high school. Plus we learned evolution. If it isn't happening here, it won't happen anywhere else in the country.
#66 to #61 - ninjaroo ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
Confirmation bias. "It didn't happen to me, therefore it isn't happening!"
#50 to #47 - vladhellsing ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
And that's what I'm arguing against. I'm glad we're in agreement.
#26 - richardastley
Reply +20
(02/10/2014) [-]
Pretty sure there are tons of bad scientific findings out there due to faulty science or big coincidences. Like ****, Sigmund Freud is still frequently used by European psychologists to this day. Do you even realize how incredibly stupid his theories look by today's scientific standards?
#53 to #26 - deescalation
Reply +4
(02/10/2014) [-]
I want to **** my mom...I mean you're right, Freud was a bit off
#37 to #26 - SteyrAUG
Reply +4
(02/10/2014) [-]
Your statement is dead on balls accurate. It's called cargo cult science, and the concept is that most scientific results are skewed in the way that the tester wanted them to go because humans have an inherent need to stroke our own egos.

You need to login to view this link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
#371 to #37 - richardastley
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
I was not aware of that term before, but now I'm ******* glad to know it. This ****** getting shared on my Facebook soon.
#111 to #37 - blokrokker
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
Speaking of cults, **** Richard Dawkins and his atheist cult. They are literally a religion, and their god is science-backed douchebaggery.
#369 to #111 - richardastley
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
lol So ******* true. Dawkins trusts the scientific method, but he's so head-strong about it that people would rather raise a fist and scream about it rather than being rational and arguing about it philosophically.
#121 to #111 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
lol
#43 to #37 - ninjaroo ONLINE
Reply +6
(02/10/2014) [-]
And to negate that we now have blind and double blind testing. If you didn't know, blind is where the subject doesn't know what's being tested and double blind is where both the scientist taking the data and the subject don't know what's being tested.
And I was under the impression it was less the ego stroking nowadays and the value of positive press from scientists to business. You know, a big company saying "Test this, but make sure our product turns out better"
#125 to #43 - SteyrAUG
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
Cargo cult science is usually more applicable in more fundamental scientific study such as heat transfer and fluid dynamics, because researchers are usually creating their own experiments to perform. Not to say that it doesn't happen in the medical field, which is why medication and product testing is done blind and double blind.
#25 - dangler
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
EVERY scientific paper 
			You need to login to view this link
		   
 hehehehehehehe
EVERY scientific paper You need to login to view this link
hehehehehehehe
#23 - flybager
Reply +3
(02/10/2014) [-]
#22 - teamrocketninja
Reply +2
(02/10/2014) [-]
#21 - ilikemanythings
Reply +313
(02/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#285 to #21 - mizzdepp
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
This is the first gif that actually made me cry with laughter
thank you !
#229 to #21 - syswolf
Reply -1
(02/11/2014) [-]
This is beautiful! I want to marry it and be the mother of my children!
#169 to #21 - thepink
Reply +15
(02/10/2014) [-]
I feel like you deserve to know just how happy that gif makes me.   
   
   
Go you
I feel like you deserve to know just how happy that gif makes me.


Go you
#17 - sodapops
Reply +74
(02/10/2014) [-]
The thing that I find really weird in all this is how the bible thumpers in (especially) USA have turned this into a religion VS science war. Even the arch-conservative VATICAN has accepted evolution. FOR 60 ******* YEARS! Yeah, yeah, I know. Not in a "we were wrong" way, but at least in a "We have no problem with that" way.
#137 to #17 - vulper
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
There are many branches of Christianity, some are really lax, other say you go to Hell for getting a tattoo or piercing. As a Christian I find it sad myself but it's not really worth the time trying to change it.
#130 to #17 - ianchrist
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
thats because they are different religions. The Vatican is catholic. This Ham idiot is some other form of Christianity
#15 - VincentKing ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
The funny thing with science is, with every new discovery, it will more than likely prove that something that was said to be true (backed by science itself) is in fact false. All the religious people are doing is one long science experiment, pushing through the critics around them.
#45 to #15 - ninjaroo ONLINE
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
Not exactly. It's like when people said the earth was flat, and were wrong. From our perspective, it pretty much is. With an average angle of like 0.01 degrees, you're not far off. Then people started saying it was a sphere, and they were wrong too. Because Earth has weird little bulges all over the place, and is more like an oblate spheroid or however you spell it. But you're still wrong because spheroids have flat surfaces.
Our current understanding isn't wrong, per se. It's just not completely right.
#283 to #45 - VincentKing ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
either it is right or wrong. You can't say "I wont get electrocuted if I lick this powerpoint" and then after you do get electrocuted, say "Well, I guess you could say I was right because it didn't electrocute me until I licked it." kind of the same point, just I'm not in the right mood to put up a better point
#383 to #283 - ninjaroo ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/11/2014) [-]
Not everything works that way. For example the wave/particle duality of light. For decades there was heated argument over which it is, now we think it's both. Neither side was wrong, they just didn't have the full story.
#14 - cumbersome
Reply +21
(02/10/2014) [-]
Can we move on now?
#378 to #14 - hybridxproject
Reply +1
(02/11/2014) [-]
no no no
no no no
#27 to #14 - lasmamoe
Reply +1
(02/10/2014) [-]
Apparently not..
#12 - megamolester
Reply 0
(02/10/2014) [-]
i was waiting on bill to say something like: "religion and science can't work together because science is knowledge, while religion bases on believes"