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

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#38 - whofortytwo (04/30/2012) [-]
Light can only be measured to a place and back.
There's a possibility that light travels instantly and takes time to reflect.
I'm just saying, there might not be a such thing as a "light year" and stuff.
User avatar #43 to #38 - SenatorGalpatine (04/30/2012) [-]
Ha. Nice try christian. We all know light is really just a projection from our eyes, not a reflection.
User avatar #48 to #43 - thunderkrux ONLINE (04/30/2012) [-]
HAHA nice try dumbass. Visible light doesn't project FROM our eyes, it is projected from a light source, reflects off an object and our eyes take in the light and our brains decipher it into meaningful images of our surroundings.
User avatar #52 to #48 - SenatorGalpatine (04/30/2012) [-]
Except with things like stars and stuff... I thought you were being stupid on purpose, and so I responded sarcastically... but now I must face-palm at your unbelievable duncedness.


Please, keep in church. No need to bother smart people with your 'ideas'.
#80 to #52 - whofortytwo (05/02/2012) [-]
Dude, what? I'm talking about science here.
The speed of light can only be measured reflecting.
User avatar #82 to #80 - SenatorGalpatine (05/02/2012) [-]
I'm sure someone somewhere took a pair of synchronous atomic clocks and used them to measure the speed of light without reflecting it... derp de der.


Similarly: if light traveled instantaneously from light sources, then all the light coming from the stars above would be "current', and wouldn't be useful for looking at the universe when it was younger.
#84 to #82 - whofortytwo (05/02/2012) [-]
I think that's the point.
User avatar #87 to #84 - SenatorGalpatine (05/03/2012) [-]
That said, when you look at far and distant galaxies you see that things get younger and younger the farther away they are, in every direction.


So either we're in the dead center of the universe, or you're an idiot. I'll give you a clue: you're not smart.
#89 to #87 - whofortytwo (05/03/2012) [-]
You know nothing about me. All you know is what I've said in this one thread.
There's no evidence that looking far away actually means you're looking into the past.
I was simply saying there may not be a such thing as light speed.

"astronauts have attached a mirror to a rock on the moon; scientists on earth can aim a laser at this mirror and measure the travel time of the laser pulse--about two and a half seconds for the round trip."
That's them measuring light reflecting. They don't know that light actually takes time to travel.
You act all "scientific" and stuff, but when an actual possibility is brought up, it's ignored.
You know what that's called? Religious.
User avatar #90 to #89 - SenatorGalpatine (05/03/2012) [-]
And you're an idiot. There are other ways to measure the speed of light other than a mirror on the moon, or are you some sort of retard?

What you're saying is the effective equivalent of this: (be prepared to cringe at your own stpuidity)

By your own logic, you would agree that we don't actually know whether or not sound actually travels the speed of sound, because we can only hear reflections of it, and 'maybe' the sound travels instantaneously until it hits something, and only then does it go the speed of sound.

Now: do you realize just how retarded you are being, or do I need to hunt you down to slap you upside the head professor-dumbass?
#93 to #90 - whofortytwo (05/04/2012) [-]
You're so religiously atheist that you won't even accept the possibility that you might be wrong.
User avatar #96 to #93 - SenatorGalpatine (05/04/2012) [-]
Saying atheist is a religion is like saying abstinence is a sex position. Dumbass.

#2. Pot calling the kettle black my dear retarded friend. One of us is wrong, and from what I'm hearing coming from the ********* conveniently placed below your nose and above your chin the odds seem to be in my favor of being fully justified in considering you to be so full of **** as to be hilarious and make me feel better about myself. Every time I respond to your inanity I tell myself: at least I'm not that guy... I'd probably kill myself if I was ever that stupid, and do the world a favor.
#97 to #96 - whofortytwo (05/04/2012) [-]
You're the one who claims to be based on science. Evolution is simply not science. If you can't accept that, I wouldn't recommend doing anything with it.

Did you know the majority of the scientific community has actually moved on from Darwin's Evolution? You just can't teach that in school.
User avatar #99 to #97 - SenatorGalpatine (05/04/2012) [-]
Riiiiight.... just like the majority of the 'scientific community' has moved on from algebra, eh?

It's a basic, fundamental rule of nature. It isn't a theory. It's provable, testable, usable, etc, etc.

Species change over time. They diverge into separate species if they're separated or isolated in some way.

If humankind had been allowed to say in the dark ages where transportation to other continents wasn't even a notion, after a few more thousand years white people and black people and chinese and all the other races may have diverged far enough that they are unable to bear children outside of their own race, and thus new species of the genus sapiens would be born. I wonder which would keep the title of homo?


Of course, in this modern world our isolation is pretty minimal. In order for us to once again see separation (and therefore new 'races' of human) come about would be for us to spread out into space. When we do we may very well end up diverging on two more more paths down the tree of life.
#100 to #99 - whofortytwo (05/08/2012) [-]
It's not testable. You don't have a bird evolve from a lizard. You have a bird with a shorter beak come from a bird with a longer beak.
User avatar #103 to #100 - SenatorGalpatine (05/09/2012) [-]
Wrong. We have living examples of fish evolving to becoming amphibians. We have fossil records of dinosaurs transitioning into birds and reptiles. We see how similar a crocodile is to a lizard in anatomy, and how whales share pelvic bones and even sometimes the leg bones (now useless remnants of their ancestry), with their previously land-dwelling cousins. We see how different types of insects might have once had a similar ancestor.... and that toads and frogs look pretty similar they're actually just seperated by about half a million years of evolution (the earth is over 6 billion years old).



Thinks like that. That's how we test these theories. Living examples.... and historical records (fossiles, cause humans weren't alive 1 million years ago... although there were some pretty smart monkeys...)

#104 to #103 - whofortytwo (05/09/2012) [-]
You all say the same thing.
Nobody has ever posted pictures or given a source.
User avatar #106 to #104 - SenatorGalpatine (05/09/2012) [-]
This is pretty much common knowledge, but fine.....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2011/08/euryapsids-return-of-enaliosauria .html (Look at the part regarding aligators)

Whaaaaales!!!! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/9742429.html

Insects: http://www.aquatax.ca/classify.html

FRoGs! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog#Evolution

Stuff like that. Took 2 seconds on google dude. My favorite is the frogs.
#107 to #106 - whofortytwo (05/09/2012) [-]
Evolutionists believe that it took about 100 million years for invertebrates (animals with no bones) to evolve into vertebrates (animals with backbones). However, no compelling fossil evidence documents this purported major and unambiguous transition.
User avatar #109 to #107 - SenatorGalpatine (05/09/2012) [-]
Riiiiiiight.... just like there's no documented evidence that the sun isn't the center of the universe.

You're stating **** you don't know like facts dude, and that ain't right. Stick this in your pipe and spoke it.

The problem you're arriving at is the incorrect assumption that invertebrates and vertibrates evolved from either one or the other.... but the truth is they evolved separately.

******* check it out.

http://animals.about.com/od/evolution/a/vertebrateevolu.htm

http://animals.about.com/od/invertebrates/Invertebrates.htm

DIAF.
#111 to #109 - whofortytwo (05/09/2012) [-]
Darn right that's an incorrect assumption. Nothing evolved into invertebrates.
User avatar #60 to #52 - thunderkrux ONLINE (04/30/2012) [-]
A smart person would know our eyes do not project light. Our eyes do not produce visible light in any way, shape or form.
Vision begins when light rays are reflected off an object and enter the eyes through the cornea, the transparent outer covering of the eye. The cornea bends or refracts the rays that pass through a round hole called the pupil. The iris, or colored portion of the eye that surrounds the pupil, opens and closes (making the pupil bigger or smaller) to regulate the amount of light passing through. The light rays then pass through the lens, which actually changes shape so it can further bend the rays and focus them on the retina at the back of the eye. These cells in the retina convert the light into electrical impulses. The optic nerve sends these impulses to the brain where an image is produced.

www.aoa.org/x6024.xml

Science just proved me right and your wrong. As for the "Keep it in church comment" I'm atheist, I have never gone, nor will I ever go to church. People are also allowed the right of free speech, by telling someone to keep it in church, then I guess I should keep my science in a science lab.
User avatar #78 to #60 - SenatorGalpatine (04/30/2012) [-]
Nice ctrl+v there.... but you don't seem to get it.


The speed of light is a constant. Reflection doesn't change it.


Moreover, there is zero reflection going on when you're look @ the original light source.


DIAF
#81 to #78 - whofortytwo (05/02/2012) [-]
The speed of light. Light may be instant, because the only way it can be measured is by reflecting it off of something. You must be a special kind of ignorant for getting a religious view from these comments.
User avatar #83 to #81 - SenatorGalpatine (05/02/2012) [-]
I naturally associate ignorance of science to be an attempt at disproving it, and that usually comes from christian's. Sort of the whole 'gravity's only a theory' thing when they try to prove that two masses attracting is actually just god pushing them together with his hands.
#85 to #83 - whofortytwo (05/02/2012) [-]
If you really want to go there, Evolution can in no way be classified as science.
User avatar #86 to #85 - SenatorGalpatine (05/03/2012) [-]
And once again you betray your ignorance.

What you're refering to, probably, isn't so much evolution (you are an idiot if you try to refute that Darwinism is a factual phenomena) but rather the 'single cell' theory.

If the single cell theory is, as you say, unscientific, then so is the big bang, all speculation on what killed the dinosaurs, gravity, and all of quantum mechanics.

Please... just try not to embarrass yourself further and just admit that you're a christian who thinks Jesus is going to rise from the grave any day now to sentance 90% of the worlds population to hell for lack of faith (Jesus is Anakin Skywalker... and Anakin killed all the younglings!!)
#88 to #86 - whofortytwo (05/03/2012) [-]
I never said anything about the Big Bang.
Darwin's Natural selection: Yes.
Big Bang: Yes.
Everything evolving from a single pile of molecules: Impossible.
How exactly does not evolving from a single cell insinuate that there is no gravity?
User avatar #91 to #88 - SenatorGalpatine (05/03/2012) [-]
If you cannot adequately explain exactly what makes the single cell theory 'impossible', I'll just continue to pretend you said "Im a ******** " instead.

This is one of the things that bugs me most about christians: they refuse to even try to understand the idea of "the tree of life".

We start with what we have currently today, and we work backwards. We find common ancestors, both alive and extinct, and these millions of distinct and different species, over large periods of time, all converge. Soon we start to not only see common ancestors of species, but also genus', families of animals also converge, then we see less and less orders of animals within their respective classes, and then less classes of animals within their phyums, all the way down the ladder until you find that at the bottom the thing that most probably was the first thing to ever be classified as "life" was probably a single cell organism (although it could hardly be called that even), of such brain-deadening simplicity that by current day standards we can't begin to understand how it even functioned, much less lived, reproduced, etc... Basically the ultimately simple machine.


That teeny mechanical lifeform, waaaay back in the history of not only earth, but the galaxy and the universe, continued to live and reproduce for an incredibly long time, until it became so wide spread that cells in different climates began to diversify themselves and adapt better, but not in any way synchronized with all hte rest of the cells until two or three very different single celled organisms suddenly existed instead of just one.

DO I NEED TO CONTINUE?
#92 to #91 - whofortytwo (05/04/2012) [-]
And where did said original pile of molecules come from?
It's impossible. They could not, according to modern science, have actually showed up naturally.
User avatar #94 to #92 - SenatorGalpatine (05/04/2012) [-]
Again, you're being a retard.

You said you didn't believe in the single cell theory. The single cell theory doesn't go further than to say "At one point in time all life on earth consisted of a single cell"


It doesn't try to explain how that cell may have come into being. You are no longer arguing against evolution, but now are trying to argue an entirely different theory of "how this **** happened".


We're pretty close to solving that puzzle by the way: and by we I mean men who actually have a brain between their ears, unlike you who has a pile of your own feces.


If you ever actually tried to learn a thing about half the crap you're spouting we wouldn't be having this conversation, cause you'd realized that these arguments are dumbass^2
#95 to #94 - whofortytwo (05/04/2012) [-]
The single cell theory is quite impossible if said single cells could never have existed in the first place. You've gone to the point of insulting me, which means you're out of logical arguments. Good day, sir.
User avatar #98 to #95 - SenatorGalpatine (05/04/2012) [-]
But obviously they did. All evidence points to that conclusion.

I've been insulting you this entire time. You're insulting me with unbelievable stupidity.

But if you're done here I can live with the hope that what I said clicked somewhere in your brain, and you are running away for fear that you might be everything that I've said you are and more.

By the by: a thing can be true, even when we don't understand it. It's whats nice about reality, rather than make-believe and ficiton.
#101 to #98 - whofortytwo (05/08/2012) [-]
Evidence is arbitrary. Any evidence you believe points to evolution can quite simply point to a God too.
I have an article for you to read.
You need to login to view this link
User avatar #102 to #101 - SenatorGalpatine (05/08/2012) [-]
No thanks. When I'm discussing a point with a friend I don't pull out books and tell him to read it real fast.

And that's another one of my many problems with christians. The evidence Doesn't point to god. Saying it over and over doesn't change anything. Usually when asked what this evidence is: they either state 'derp da bible', or the human brain. How could something as complex as the human brain exist?


To that I always do the reductionist route. Monkey and dolphin brains are pretty complex too. And so are dog brains. And so are mouse brains. and so are fish brains. and so are insect brains. and so are ameoba brains...

But the problem is: it's much easier to explain how an ameoba brain works... and it's not really a mystery. A step up from there: bugs? Pretty easy to see the leaps that would need to be made. Stiill not complex....

And you go all the way back up the ladder making those tiny leaps all the way to the human brain... and you realize it's not amazing or impossible at all. It's just the inevitable result of greater and greater complexity arising out of a need for better cognitive faculties in order to hunt and/or avoid being hunted.

The human brain, and 'consciousness' are evidence only of themselves. Just because you, with your limited ability to use your own brain, can't understand a thing doesn't mean it has to have been made through divine intervention. The notion is about as ridiculous as aliens building the pyramids.


I'm afraid what you are refering to is Lack of evidence.


#105 to #102 - whofortytwo (05/09/2012) [-]
Fine. Give me one single piece of reputable evidence and I'll tell you how it can point to a God.
User avatar #108 to #105 - SenatorGalpatine (05/09/2012) [-]
Carbon Dating.

Fossilized Dinosaurs.

Homo erectus, neanderthals, etc... (proto humans)

snakes with vestigial leg and arm bones that do nothing.

Organs that do nothing in certain animals, but do something in others.

Men with nipples.

The big Bang

The evolution of man kind not only genetically (we're taller and handsomer than ever!) but also sociologically (our moral standards have changed in the past few hundred years from stoning unfaithful wives to death and treating them like slaves to treating them like human beings for instance)...

The fact that God is theoretically, and practically, unsound (a self contradiction actually the most accurate description).

The fact that the "god" in the bible is self-contradictory, extremely vicious, unforgiving, hateful, envious, a satanic torturer, childish, Human, flawed, disgraceful, unhumble, and otherwise dispicable creature unworthy of any sort of respect or even kindness?

Honestly.... if god existed: most especially the god depicted by the "holy bible written by god himself'.... I'd punch him in the snoz and then kick him in the balls if given half a chance.... then tell him "Don't be such a prickish baby you ******* lunatic and grow a pair."

#110 to #108 - whofortytwo (05/09/2012) [-]
Carbon dating isn't even used anymore because it was deemed inaccurate. Try again.

I don't see how dinosaur fossils have anything to do with this debate. If you care to elaborate, I'll see what I can find.

Natural Selection is an ingenious scheme. How could DNA have just appeared?
Homo Erectus are just human variation. Kinda like fat people.

The loss of legs on snakes shows degeneration, not evolution.

Common model by a common creator.

Haven't I already addressed the Big Bang? There wouldn't be a Big Bang without a cause.

Speculation. Also that's just Natural Selection.

Don't understand this question. Elaborate.

I don't think you've read enough of the Bible to be saying this.

If you were to do that, you'd be sent to hell.
Actually, you probably will be. You just don't understand what it is. You should research Hell.
 Friends (0)