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

hide menu

aaronjzc    

Rank #1831 on Subscribers
aaronjzc Avatar Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win
Offline
Send mail to aaronjzc Block aaronjzc Invite aaronjzc to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/29/2010
Last Login:1/18/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 22262 total,  24216 ,  1954
Comment Thumbs: 5404 total,  6359 ,  955
Content Level Progress: 26% (260/1000)
Level 222 Content: Mind Blower → Level 223 Content: Mind Blower
Comment Level Progress: 4% (4/100)
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:45
Content Views:35596
Times Content Favorited:2307 times
Total Comments Made:1181
FJ Points:27926

latest user's comments

#101 - ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm b…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/16/2012 on I don't play games to learn -1
#104 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?
User avatar #106 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job
#195 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
#107 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?
User avatar #108 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction
#109 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?
User avatar #111 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.
#98 - i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody …  [+] (9 new replies) 05/16/2012 on I don't play games to learn -1
#99 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.
User avatar #101 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?
#104 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?
User avatar #106 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job
#195 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
#107 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?
User avatar #108 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction
#109 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?
User avatar #111 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.
#95 - so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?  [+] (11 new replies) 05/16/2012 on I don't play games to learn -1
#96 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.
User avatar #98 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?
#99 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.
User avatar #101 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?
#104 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?
User avatar #106 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job
#195 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
#107 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?
User avatar #108 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction
#109 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?
User avatar #111 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.
#93 - what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?  [+] (16 new replies) 05/16/2012 on I don't play games to learn -1
#94 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.
#136 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck
#139 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.
#147 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one
User avatar #95 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?
#96 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.
User avatar #98 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?
#99 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.
User avatar #101 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?
#104 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?
User avatar #106 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job
#195 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
#107 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?
User avatar #108 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction
#109 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?
User avatar #111 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.
#91 - but can you honestly say that you are completely sure of your …  [+] (18 new replies) 05/16/2012 on I don't play games to learn -1
#92 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
I am certain of my faith.
User avatar #93 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?
#94 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.
#136 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck
#139 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.
#147 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one
User avatar #95 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?
#96 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.
User avatar #98 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?
#99 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.
User avatar #101 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?
#104 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?
User avatar #106 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job
#195 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
#107 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?
User avatar #108 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction
#109 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?
User avatar #111 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.
#89 - well actually, what militant actually means in the case of rel…  [+] (20 new replies) 05/16/2012 on I don't play games to learn -1
#90 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Really? Because I just looked up "faith" and it said "confidence or trust in a person or thing".
Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody knows. I'm pretty sure of my beliefs.
User avatar #91 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
but can you honestly say that you are completely sure of your beliefs, or would you say that you have faith?
#92 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
I am certain of my faith.
User avatar #93 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?
#94 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.
#136 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck
#139 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.
#147 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one
User avatar #95 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?
#96 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.
User avatar #98 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?
#99 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.
User avatar #101 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?
#104 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?
User avatar #106 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job
#195 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
#107 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?
User avatar #108 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction
#109 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?
User avatar #111 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.
#85 - I uh.. I don't think there's any such thing as a militant agno…  [+] (61 new replies) 05/16/2012 on I don't play games to learn 0
#112 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Hit the limit.
So. How did said tiny lifeforms get there?
And don't say the Big Bang, that's a crap argument.
User avatar #113 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
the big bang is a valid theory. i do not say that the theory of an all-powerful, all-knowing being is a crap argument. the big bang just seems to make a little more sense to me.
#114 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
That's the part where I explain.
If you have a jar, completely empty, and leave it for a billion years, assuming the seal doesn't break, what happens?
User avatar #116 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
well let's see here. your generic run-of-the mill jar is going to be made of glass. typical glass is soda-lime glass, composed of about 75% silica (SiO2) plus Na2O, CaO, and several minor additives. now these could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe, because there is evidence that elements were created via the big bang. nothingness had no container. nothingness's container was nothingness. now assuming you sealed that jar on earth, it would be filled with oxygen. the nothingness that emerged from the bag bang was not oxygen. your statement has little to no valid points.
#117 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
>completely empty
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. NOTHING.
So what was the cause of the Big Bang? NOTHING.
You don't exist.
User avatar #119 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
now there's a completely different argument right there. are we still on religion vs non religion, or are we now moving on to existence vs non existence?
#120 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Oh, so you don't think you exist?
User avatar #123 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i never said anything of the sort. what is your outlook on it?
#133 - 4chan refugee (05/16/2012) [-]
Sorry this guy is being an asshole religious guy. Most of us aren't like him.
User avatar #145 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
it's ok. i respect your beliefs, my friend. and i know many religious people who respect my beliefs, as i respect theirs. thank you for being considerate.
#126 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
I believe I exist because humanity was created by God.
But if there was no cause, there was no effect. Anyone who claims the Big Bang was a cause effectively claims their own nonexistence.
User avatar #127 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
that's where i think you're wrong, my friend. anybody who believes in the big bang theory effectively claims that as the origin of their existence.
#128 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
But it's not the cause. It's the effect.
Do you have any other theory to combat my claim?
User avatar #135 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
It's infinitely harder to understand what caused the big bang occurred (And addressing a previous statement, the theory of the big bang states that there was a single molecule of infinite mass and density that collapsed into itself) just as impossible it would be to explain were god came from. Simply stating that god has always existed is a complete fallacy since everything has to come from somewhere and I think if you are going to argue where the first molecule came from you should first explain where god came from for fairness.
#194 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Someone I was arguing with before sent me a video saying that C14 dating wasn't used anymore. If you care, I can find it for you.
#158 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
I don't have anything very specific at the moment, but I found this.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/archeology.htm
User avatar #166 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
So archeological evidence is valid when disproving Moses yet the dinosaur bones that date back a 200 million years ago (far longer then the bible states) isn't?
#169 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Ah, here's an interesting bit.
How do you know your dating methods are accurate?
User avatar #173 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Because of carbon dating which has been scientifically proven to be accurate within a few hundred years of something that old.
How do you know the documents you believe disproves when Judaism began are accurate?
#175 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
The scientific community no longer uses C14 dating.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
User avatar #186 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
That's not true at all, they still do use C14 (Or K14) dating.
Also, that (very bias) source says nothing about C14 not being used.
The source also states that Carbon dating is a theory and thus discreditably. It is indeed a theory but it is a more scientifically backed up theory then anything stated in the bible. Gravity is also a theory but if I were to throw my keyboard I can guarantee that it will fall to the floor.
#153 - 4chan refugee (05/16/2012) [-]
A clock without a maker
User avatar #154 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
A clock without a maker is no clock at all.
#159 - 4chan refugee (05/16/2012) [-]
Obviously a reference to watchmen
User avatar #168 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Oh, then it would be "A clock without a craftsman." said by Dr. Manhattan
#142 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Again. Omnipotent. Google.
User avatar #146 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
A claim of omnipotence means nothing without a show of such power. If that's the case I too am omnipotent. Prove I'm not.
User avatar #129 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
you mean your claim that god exists?
#130 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
My claim that the Big Bang could not have caused itself. That's paradoxical.
User avatar #132 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
so is the theory that god created himself, or has always been
#134 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Created himself would be, yes. How is it paradoxical that God always existed?
I think you need to find the definition of omnipotent.
User avatar #143 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Who is to say god is omnipotent? None have met god face to face but only go off the word of a book written by people who claim to have met people who met Jesus. And if god has always existed why did Judaism only appear around 1800 BC when the earth (By biblical standards) has been around 2000 years before that?
#150 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Source, please.
I think your dating is off.
User avatar #155 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Here's a few backing up when Judaism began (With Abraham as the founder)
www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/religion/jewish.htm
http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm
www.uri.org/kids/world_juda_basi.htm

Now on the 6000 year old earth:
http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html
User avatar #140 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
one may say that the means necessary to start the big bang have always existed as well.
#144 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
If an explosion is omnipotent, what happens?
I'm pretty sure I said don't say the Big Bang.
#157 - 4chan refugee (05/16/2012) [-]
FUCK ALL OF YOU! MY LEATHER BOUND BOOK SAYS I AM RIGHT, AND THAT MAKES ME BETTER! PRAISE JEBUS, BITCH!
User avatar #149 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i'm not saying the explosion is omnipotent. i'm not claiming that anything is omnipotent, in fact.
User avatar #148 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Saying others can't use their own beliefs in this argument is like saying you can't say god did it.
#86 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
That actually is militant agnostic.
If nobody knows what's true or what isn't, how do you know that nobody knows?
User avatar #89 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
well actually, what militant actually means in the case of religion and non-religion is that they try and push their beliefs on other people with aggression without respecting the views of others, and without actually knowing if what they believe is true. agnostics cannot be militant, because if they state their beliefs, then they are stating fact (until the presence of a god is proven or dis proven, that is) because it is a fact that nobody can truthfully say that they know for sure, and the most they can say is that they have faith in their beliefs. faith is actually defined as "belief without evidence".
#90 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Really? Because I just looked up "faith" and it said "confidence or trust in a person or thing".
Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody knows. I'm pretty sure of my beliefs.
User avatar #91 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
but can you honestly say that you are completely sure of your beliefs, or would you say that you have faith?
#92 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
I am certain of my faith.
User avatar #93 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?
#94 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.
#136 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck
#139 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.
#147 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one
User avatar #95 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?
#96 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.
User avatar #98 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?
#99 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.
User avatar #101 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?
#104 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?
User avatar #106 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job
#195 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
#107 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?
User avatar #108 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction
#109 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?
User avatar #111 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.
#75 - i think mlp is stupid, but i thumbed this post for courage 05/15/2012 on Courage knows 0
#75 - i'm ok with that. because i'm an Agnostic Atheist and i think…  [+] (64 new replies) 05/15/2012 on I don't play games to learn +5
#97 - xyxoz (05/16/2012) [-]
I am god and what is this?
#78 - whofortytwo (05/15/2012) [-]
Have you heard of militant agnostic? They're funny to me
User avatar #85 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I uh.. I don't think there's any such thing as a militant agnostic. The "i don't know and neither do you" philosophy is actually true, whether people like it or not, because we have yet to present evidence of the existence or non-existence of a god, and therefore, nobody does know. I'm an Agnostic Atheist because I accept the fact that nobody knows for sure, but I personally do not believe in a god.
#112 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Hit the limit.
So. How did said tiny lifeforms get there?
And don't say the Big Bang, that's a crap argument.
User avatar #113 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
the big bang is a valid theory. i do not say that the theory of an all-powerful, all-knowing being is a crap argument. the big bang just seems to make a little more sense to me.
#114 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
That's the part where I explain.
If you have a jar, completely empty, and leave it for a billion years, assuming the seal doesn't break, what happens?
User avatar #116 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
well let's see here. your generic run-of-the mill jar is going to be made of glass. typical glass is soda-lime glass, composed of about 75% silica (SiO2) plus Na2O, CaO, and several minor additives. now these could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe, because there is evidence that elements were created via the big bang. nothingness had no container. nothingness's container was nothingness. now assuming you sealed that jar on earth, it would be filled with oxygen. the nothingness that emerged from the bag bang was not oxygen. your statement has little to no valid points.
#117 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
>completely empty
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. NOTHING.
So what was the cause of the Big Bang? NOTHING.
You don't exist.
User avatar #119 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
now there's a completely different argument right there. are we still on religion vs non religion, or are we now moving on to existence vs non existence?
#120 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Oh, so you don't think you exist?
User avatar #123 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i never said anything of the sort. what is your outlook on it?
#133 - 4chan refugee (05/16/2012) [-]
Sorry this guy is being an asshole religious guy. Most of us aren't like him.
User avatar #145 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
it's ok. i respect your beliefs, my friend. and i know many religious people who respect my beliefs, as i respect theirs. thank you for being considerate.
#126 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
I believe I exist because humanity was created by God.
But if there was no cause, there was no effect. Anyone who claims the Big Bang was a cause effectively claims their own nonexistence.
User avatar #127 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
that's where i think you're wrong, my friend. anybody who believes in the big bang theory effectively claims that as the origin of their existence.
#128 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
But it's not the cause. It's the effect.
Do you have any other theory to combat my claim?
User avatar #135 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
It's infinitely harder to understand what caused the big bang occurred (And addressing a previous statement, the theory of the big bang states that there was a single molecule of infinite mass and density that collapsed into itself) just as impossible it would be to explain were god came from. Simply stating that god has always existed is a complete fallacy since everything has to come from somewhere and I think if you are going to argue where the first molecule came from you should first explain where god came from for fairness.
#194 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Someone I was arguing with before sent me a video saying that C14 dating wasn't used anymore. If you care, I can find it for you.
#158 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
I don't have anything very specific at the moment, but I found this.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/archeology.htm
User avatar #166 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
So archeological evidence is valid when disproving Moses yet the dinosaur bones that date back a 200 million years ago (far longer then the bible states) isn't?
#169 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Ah, here's an interesting bit.
How do you know your dating methods are accurate?
User avatar #173 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Because of carbon dating which has been scientifically proven to be accurate within a few hundred years of something that old.
How do you know the documents you believe disproves when Judaism began are accurate?
#175 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
The scientific community no longer uses C14 dating.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
User avatar #186 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
That's not true at all, they still do use C14 (Or K14) dating.
Also, that (very bias) source says nothing about C14 not being used.
The source also states that Carbon dating is a theory and thus discreditably. It is indeed a theory but it is a more scientifically backed up theory then anything stated in the bible. Gravity is also a theory but if I were to throw my keyboard I can guarantee that it will fall to the floor.
#153 - 4chan refugee (05/16/2012) [-]
A clock without a maker
User avatar #154 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
A clock without a maker is no clock at all.
#159 - 4chan refugee (05/16/2012) [-]
Obviously a reference to watchmen
User avatar #168 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Oh, then it would be "A clock without a craftsman." said by Dr. Manhattan
#142 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Again. Omnipotent. Google.
User avatar #146 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
A claim of omnipotence means nothing without a show of such power. If that's the case I too am omnipotent. Prove I'm not.
User avatar #129 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
you mean your claim that god exists?
#130 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
My claim that the Big Bang could not have caused itself. That's paradoxical.
User avatar #132 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
so is the theory that god created himself, or has always been
#134 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Created himself would be, yes. How is it paradoxical that God always existed?
I think you need to find the definition of omnipotent.
User avatar #143 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Who is to say god is omnipotent? None have met god face to face but only go off the word of a book written by people who claim to have met people who met Jesus. And if god has always existed why did Judaism only appear around 1800 BC when the earth (By biblical standards) has been around 2000 years before that?
#150 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Source, please.
I think your dating is off.
User avatar #155 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Here's a few backing up when Judaism began (With Abraham as the founder)
www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/religion/jewish.htm
http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm
www.uri.org/kids/world_juda_basi.htm

Now on the 6000 year old earth:
http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html
User avatar #140 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
one may say that the means necessary to start the big bang have always existed as well.
#144 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
If an explosion is omnipotent, what happens?
I'm pretty sure I said don't say the Big Bang.
#157 - 4chan refugee (05/16/2012) [-]
FUCK ALL OF YOU! MY LEATHER BOUND BOOK SAYS I AM RIGHT, AND THAT MAKES ME BETTER! PRAISE JEBUS, BITCH!
User avatar #149 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i'm not saying the explosion is omnipotent. i'm not claiming that anything is omnipotent, in fact.
User avatar #148 - trimageryan (05/16/2012) [-]
Saying others can't use their own beliefs in this argument is like saying you can't say god did it.
#86 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
That actually is militant agnostic.
If nobody knows what's true or what isn't, how do you know that nobody knows?
User avatar #89 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
well actually, what militant actually means in the case of religion and non-religion is that they try and push their beliefs on other people with aggression without respecting the views of others, and without actually knowing if what they believe is true. agnostics cannot be militant, because if they state their beliefs, then they are stating fact (until the presence of a god is proven or dis proven, that is) because it is a fact that nobody can truthfully say that they know for sure, and the most they can say is that they have faith in their beliefs. faith is actually defined as "belief without evidence".
#90 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Really? Because I just looked up "faith" and it said "confidence or trust in a person or thing".
Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody knows. I'm pretty sure of my beliefs.
User avatar #91 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
but can you honestly say that you are completely sure of your beliefs, or would you say that you have faith?
#92 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
I am certain of my faith.
User avatar #93 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
what is your faith, and what is your proof that it is correct?
#94 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
There is no proof.
There is plenty of evidence, though.
#136 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
No proof, but plenty of evidence
My mind is full of fuck
#139 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Dude. Evidence is arbitrary. It can point to whatever you want it to.
Proof is solid.
#147 - moosic (05/16/2012) [-]
Yeah, it was a joke. A lame one
User avatar #95 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
so are you religious, or not religious? and what is the evidence?
#96 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Everybody is religious about something.
The evidence is everywhere.
User avatar #98 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
i'm not religious about anything (assuming you mean everybody has a religion). and would you be so kind as to describe to me this evidence that is everywhere?
#99 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You seem pretty religious in your belief that there is no evidence for any religion. It's rather paradoxical, actually.
User avatar #101 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
ah, i think you mean "religious" as in I am a firm believer in the fact that nobody can provide solid evidence. yes, that is true, but i am not religious in the sense that i have a religion. it would seem the way you and I prefer to define "religious" is different. on a different note, are you planning on describing your evidence of a god to me? or no?
#104 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Are you familiar with irreducible complexity?
User avatar #106 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
I havn't heard much about it. I do know that it is a certain type of belief stating that some things are too complex to have evolved on their own. what I say to that, is that billions of years is more than enough time for single-cell organisms to become super-complex life forms. we see evidence of evolution occurring even today. the fact that humans have separate skin colors is proof that different groups of people, depending on the area they are indigenous to, have evolved slightly differently. another example of evolution today, is that human baby toes are getting gradually smaller, because footwear fills the need for extra balance when standing, which was previously the baby toe's job
#195 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
So you're implying that said smaller organisms always existed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
#107 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
You realize that they would need a certain complexity to be able to become more complex, right?
User avatar #108 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
yes. and i think single cells have more than enough complexity to be capable of becoming more complex via reproduction
#109 - whofortytwo (05/16/2012) [-]
Said single cells existed in the first place how, exactly?
User avatar #111 - aaronjzc (05/16/2012) [-]
expansion and growth cannot occur without there having originally been smaller organisms that have reproduced at a rapid rate.
#57 - the same kind of "retard girl" i would want at my ho… 05/14/2012 on Seriously +4
#462 - yes I am jelly. Because NPH is a ******* boss and… 05/04/2012 on read the description +3
#303 - **aaronjzc rolled a random image posted in comment #461 at … 05/03/2012 on Its real...... +4
#288 - are you kidding me? really? now? 05/03/2012 on Minecraft 0
#105 - Comment deleted 04/25/2012 on Superman 0
#104 - Comment deleted 04/25/2012 on Superman 0
#102 - Comment deleted 04/25/2012 on Superman 0
#40 - Man I remember playing on at recess with my friends and acting…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/24/2012 on Lord of the Rings +7
User avatar #82 - herecomesjohnny (04/24/2012) [-]
don't get why they're cutting the movie in two, totally could fit in one...
User avatar #45 - DrBobsPatient (04/24/2012) [-]
philsoraptor.jpg

what does one do,

if they can't wait?
#44 - grandwhovian has deleted their comment.
#43 - GamerOfTime (04/24/2012) [-]
#141 - **aaronjzc rolled a random image posted in comment #3891055 … 04/23/2012 on fuck logic 0
#672 - the thing shreds a ******* car 04/23/2012 on One of the Most Powerful... +1
#360 - see's OP's post comments that he is a total faggot 04/22/2012 on Point out the obvious Liam +6
#836 - **aaronjzc rolls 120,815,385** bitch ******* please 04/21/2012 on IT'S REAL!!!! 0
#10 - oh cool. you an agnostic? 04/21/2012 on Agnosticism - Fuck Yeah 0
#8 - did you go through the same thing?  [+] (2 new replies) 04/21/2012 on Agnosticism - Fuck Yeah 0
User avatar #9 - DrBobsPatient (04/21/2012) [-]
used to. now i'm in college and don't go, and then when i go back home to visit, my parents don't care if i go or not. it's nice to go on occasion, but it definitely did.
User avatar #10 - aaronjzc (04/21/2012) [-]
oh cool. you an agnostic?
#6 - haha my bad. i wish paint had a spell checker. oh well. hope y…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/21/2012 on Agnosticism - Fuck Yeah 0
User avatar #7 - DrBobsPatient (04/21/2012) [-]
i did cause i know your pain. and conformation is a word, so it probably wouldn't have helped you much, but it's just not the right word lol
User avatar #8 - aaronjzc (04/21/2012) [-]
did you go through the same thing?
User avatar #9 - DrBobsPatient (04/21/2012) [-]
used to. now i'm in college and don't go, and then when i go back home to visit, my parents don't care if i go or not. it's nice to go on occasion, but it definitely did.
User avatar #10 - aaronjzc (04/21/2012) [-]
oh cool. you an agnostic?
#154 - **aaronjzc rolled a random image posted in comment #2 at d… 04/20/2012 on One of my favourtite gifs 0

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #39 - TheFixer (03/05/2012) [-]
well, well, well what do we have here a no good commet deleting fag... op better deliver
#38 - creamymcgee (03/05/2012) [-]
Don't forget that pony costume. DELIVER OP!! DELIVER! you have to do what you said you would when you roll. because if you don't your racist. and racist is illegal. so i'm gonna have to call the cops on you. kthxbai
Don't forget that pony costume. DELIVER OP!! DELIVER! you have to do what you said you would when you roll. because if you don't your racist. and racist is illegal. so i'm gonna have to call the cops on you. kthxbai
#40 to #38 - 4chan refugee (03/05/2012) [-]
DO IT FAGGOT
#37 - belligerentchris **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#36 - kridane has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #28 - howuncreativeofme (09/04/2011) [-]
u croatian? :)
User avatar #29 to #28 - aaronjzc (09/04/2011) [-]
yeah u? :)
User avatar #30 to #29 - howuncreativeofme (09/04/2011) [-]
cool where in croatia? my parents are, but we're in australia now :)
User avatar #31 to #30 - aaronjzc (09/04/2011) [-]
yeah my mom and grandmother are Croatian. from Zagreb. I live in Canada, though.
User avatar #32 to #31 - howuncreativeofme (09/04/2011) [-]
nice. do u speak it?
User avatar #33 to #32 - aaronjzc (09/04/2011) [-]
not fluently. you?
User avatar #34 to #33 - howuncreativeofme (09/04/2011) [-]
yeh, my parents couldnt speak english for a long time so i always speak croatian at home
User avatar #35 to #34 - aaronjzc (09/04/2011) [-]
aah yeah my mom didn't speak english when she was a little kid.
#16 - bobJML (07/07/2011) [-]
Hey man, what's up?
User avatar #17 to #16 - aaronjzc (07/07/2011) [-]
lol not much u? (pic related?)
#18 to #17 - bobJML (07/08/2011) [-]
Good I guess, also what pic?
User avatar #19 to #18 - aaronjzc (07/08/2011) [-]
hank hill
#21 to #19 - bobJML (07/08/2011) [-]
My pictures are always related sir.
#22 to #21 - aaronjzc (07/08/2011) [-]
as are mine
User avatar #42 to #26 - jingleforth (08/21/2012) [-]
first comment I ever favorited.
#27 to #26 - bobJML (07/08/2011) [-]
It is now day 15 without any Scooby Snacks.
It is now day 15 without any Scooby Snacks.
User avatar #13 - darkoneten (06/28/2011) [-]
Your a idiot and a child. go jump off a cliff
#15 to #13 - bobJML (07/07/2011) [-]
*You're
*an
User avatar #20 to #15 - aaronjzc (07/08/2011) [-]
precisely, my good man
User avatar #14 to #13 - aaronjzc (06/28/2011) [-]
shut up bitch what the **** was that for
#6 - bobJML (04/02/2011) [-]
How are you doing?
How are you doing?
User avatar #7 to #6 - aaronjzc (04/02/2011) [-]
Not bad, bro. And you?
#8 to #7 - bobJML (04/02/2011) [-]
Oh man I have this star, and I don't know what to do with it.
Oh man I have this star, and I don't know what to do with it.
User avatar #9 to #8 - aaronjzc (04/02/2011) [-]
Hate to tell you, man but that will probably run out soon. Just run into all the people you can:)
#3 - bobJML (02/27/2011) [-]
What's up?
User avatar #4 to #3 - aaronjzc (03/01/2011) [-]
not much hbu?
User avatar #5 to #4 - bobJML (03/01/2011) [-]
lol notta lot.
User avatar #2 - afromann (02/25/2011) [-]
the 90's comic was genius
 Friends (0)