If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts   (nymag.com) divider line 303
    More: Obvious, gifts, opinions  
•       •       •

7601 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Nov 2012 at 5:44 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-10 08:11:38 PM  

yousaywut: IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.


Once again, Natural Selection can never be proven, never be regarded as a fact. It's a 'theory'. It can only be confirmed.
 
2012-11-10 08:16:45 PM  

IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.

Once again, Natural Selection can never be proven, never be regarded as a fact. It's a 'theory'. It can only be confirmed.


Natural selection is a theory that explains how and why evolution happens. Evolution, however, is a fact, even if we want to debate the way it works.
 
2012-11-10 08:17:18 PM  

bugontherug: Aldon: randomjsa: A slicker liar could have won, and still might.

Somebody might want to tell him that Obama did win.

Of course, it's not only that Obama is a much bigger liar and distorter of reality, it's that the media doesn't call him on it because they're in the tank for him. If they're not helping him lie then they're actively working to give him a pass on everything he screws up.

You keep hoping and wishing our President will screw up... sooner or later one of your Obama's Katrina! Obama-gate! accusations will really amount to something, then you can be happy about our country suffering.

/frankly I am amazed that Obama has not had a scandal in his first term, unlike every other President in my lifetime. It would be genius level amazing if he does the same on his second term.

You don't think Obama's plot to shove gun control down our throats by personally handing automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords so they'll terrorize the public causing them to cry out for protection constitutes a scandal?


Nah, he's just working for the hispanic, gun-owner and pro marijuana demographics' votes.
 
2012-11-10 08:19:06 PM  

namatad: sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened


3 and 4 are good. #6 needs to be more specific, along the lines of "hijacked passenger airliners were flown into buildings on Sep 11, 2001". #5 is open to speculation, and it would be better to say "no weapons were found..." rather than saying that no such items existed. I would be inclined to drop those two and replace them with "T/F: A majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens".

I would get rid of your question #1 because it relies on documents of questioned authenticity, and there's no way for someone today to independently verify it. It's true, but it's a much weaker "fact" than something like the age of the universe which anyone can test with a few rocks and a Geiger counter. Also number 2 should be re-worded to something like "... identifies himself as a Christian".
 
2012-11-10 08:20:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.


What makes you think you're any smarter than the rest of the wad? If you possess any extraordinary intellectual qualities, you certainly haven't demonstrated them here today.
 
2012-11-10 08:23:00 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.

What makes you think you're any smarter than the rest of the wad? If you possess any extraordinary intellectual qualities, you certainly haven't demonstrated them here today.


I know who the VP is. That's a start. That would weed out many thousands of people...and on from there.
 
2012-11-10 08:25:02 PM  

yousaywut: namatad: Silly Jesus: Would you be in favor of voters having to demonstrate some modicum of intelligence / relevant knowledge prior to voting?

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved

1: true
2: true
3: true
4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)
5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)

6: true



You're an idiot: TRUE.

4) Evolution is a FACT. The theory of evolution supports and explains the fact of evolution. Replace "evolution" with "gravity" and see how that works. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity supports and explains the fact of gravity. BTW, the theory of evolution is much more robust and fully detailed in its explanation of the fact of evolution than the current theory of gravity is in explaining the fact of gravity. Scientists still don't know what the mechanism is for objects to "tell each other their presence" so that gravity works. Are they gravitons? Warping of the space-time continuum? Vibrations of superstrings?

Evolution has a very clear and well detailed mechanism: the DNA.

5) That all depends on how one defines weapons of mass destruction. TNT itself isn't WMD, but several billion tons of it could be considered WMD. As of the time of the second Iraq war, there were no nuclear weapons, no chemical or biological weapons, not even a large store of TNT. So yeah, there were no WMD in Iraq at least at 2002 through to the present.
 
2012-11-10 08:28:12 PM  

IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?

Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.

Once again, Natural Selection can never be proven, never be regarded as a fact. It's a 'theory'. It can only be confirmed.


Arrrgh.

Evolution and Natural Selection are fact, and are easily proven. Not only have they been proven many times over, but you can set up experiments on your own to prove them. There's no question on this.

The Theory of Evolution is not the theory of IF evolution works. It's the theory of HOW evolution works.

The Theory of Evolution may be completely wrong. There's now evidence that if you take a pair of animals that do not have a superior genetic structure and have them live in a community of the same animals that have a superior "mutation", that the children of the pair may have the "mutation" as well. How is this possible? Lamarckian theory? Viruses causing the mutation? Viruses sharing the mutation? Something that happens via skin contact, or something else? It's too new to know. We could be completely wrong about the major factors in divergent evolution.

But it's still Evolution, and it's still Natural Selection. Like Gravity, it's a proven fact.

And if it someday turns out that fish and humans have a completely different evolutionary process, and their similarities are a complete coincidence...that stilll doesn't disprove Evolution. Evolution does not say that everything from humans to amoebas have a common ancestor.
 
2012-11-10 08:29:52 PM  
How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?
 
2012-11-10 08:30:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.

What makes you think you're any smarter than the rest of the wad? If you possess any extraordinary intellectual qualities, you certainly haven't demonstrated them here today.

I know who the VP is. That's a start. That would weed out many thousands of people...and on from there.


Mmmm..yeah, I think I'll just stick with the ol' Vox Populi. Most self appointed geniuses don't inspire any confidence in me.
They have a tendency to buy stuff from ACME Corp.
 
2012-11-10 08:31:42 PM  

rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?


Natural selection of inflammatory comments lead to a new thread species.
 
2012-11-10 08:32:00 PM  

rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?


Beats the shiat outta me.
 
2012-11-10 08:32:00 PM  

dericwater: yousaywut: namatad: Silly Jesus: Would you be in favor of voters having to demonstrate some modicum of intelligence / relevant knowledge prior to voting?

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved

1: true
2: true
3: true
4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)
5: false Ask the kurds about that one. (whether they were still around at the time of the Iraq invasion is entirely different)
6: true



You're an idiot: TRUE.

4) Evolution is a FACT. The theory of evolution supports and explains the fact of evolution. Replace "evolution" with "gravity" and see how that works. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity supports and explains the fact of gravity. BTW, the theory of evolution is much more robust and fully detailed in its explanation of the fact of evolution than the current theory of gravity is in explaining the fact of gravity. Scientists still don't know what the mechanism is for objects to "tell each other their presence" so that gravity works. Are they gravitons? Warping of the space-time continuum? Vibrations of superstrings?

Evolution has a very clear and well detailed mechanism: the DNA.

5) That all depends on how one defines weapons of mass destruction. TNT itself isn't WMD, but several billion tons of it could be considered WMD. As of the time of the sec ...


You are a dumbass lazy farker (too lazy to actually read a thread before saying something stupid) without the brains god gave a goat. FACT.

Argument for number 4 over see previous posts.

The question for number 5 is has no dependance on the term WMD it depends on the timeline which as the question states is forever. not since 2003 or even since 1990 forever. The implication is there that the question is trying to refer to since the invasion but the fact is the question needs to be reworded.

//first fact is open to debate the other 2 have been discussed.
 
2012-11-10 08:32:41 PM  

IoSaturnalia: yousaywut: Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

You're just being silly now. Througout recorded history or the fossil record there are no, none zero nil counterexamples to Natural Selection. If you want to stick around 30 or 40 million years though, I'll give you 3:5 odds that penguins develop gills. What do you say to a little wager - a dollar perhaps?


Penguins will never develop gills. Penguins will either die off (most likely) and evolved versions of them will swim and live in the sea for more of their time than currently now. We have mammals who have gone back to the sea (dolphins, whales, otters) and none of them have gills. Penguins came from birds, which are evolved from dinosaurs. Maybe if you trace back another 100 million years, you would get ancestors that had gills.
 
2012-11-10 08:32:46 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Arrrgh.

Evolution and Natural Selection are fact, and are easily proven. Not only have they been proven many times over, but you can set up experiments on your own to prove them. There's no question on this.


Arrrgh. How's about you read a little Popper or otherwise educate yourself before making bold pronouncements like this?
 
2012-11-10 08:33:51 PM  

yousaywut: A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed.


Yes, and electricity is a myth because we can't see it. As is wind.

And space? Not real... well at least not to the extent they would have us believe. Likely a veil of some sort placed there by a creator that knew we would look outwards and be shocked if we saw heaven.

Gravity is the biggest lie of them all. All they know is that things do fall when we toss them up, nothing more.

It's all actually God magic and man should not presume so much into the world of the unknown. We know nothing beyond that which can be readily observed on my front porch by me and my dog Trigger. THAT IS PURE SCIENCE FACT. In fact there are only TWO facts humans know: water is wet and Freedom.

ffs

The entire bone structures and biology of large mammals in the sea are those of land animals that evolved into sea life. Horses were one doglike-badger-thingys, In fact, all land mammals came from those that survived the dino-die-off (small little rodent-like bastards) so in a way, yes, a dog did become a cow.

You walk around with at least a dozen vestigial traits your body has zero need for but nature has burdened you with none-the-less.

What do you think observing the fossil record is, if not witnessing history? As so many different species' DNA is mapped and cataloged we are starting to be able to show a type of 'genetic evolutionary paper trail'. We have found our species mitochondrial Eve, we HAVE PROVEN these things to be true.

I'm all for calling a scientist out on his shiat when he makes unqualified claims. But there is a far cry between that and decrying science itself because you personally (in all your wisdom and glory) just feel they haven't proven things well enough to your Joe-Everyman-Logic standards.

Are there any other sciences you'd like to deny the validity of because you didn't happen to see them occur real-time in front of your face?
 
2012-11-10 08:34:29 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: I support an uninformed and intellectually incompetent electorate. I wouldn't want to disenfranchise imbeciles when it comes to making important decisions concerning my life. Hurrrrrr Durrrrr.

What makes you think you're any smarter than the rest of the wad? If you possess any extraordinary intellectual qualities, you certainly haven't demonstrated them here today.

I know who the VP is. That's a start. That would weed out many thousands of people...and on from there.

Mmmm..yeah, I think I'll just stick with the ol' Vox Populi. Most self appointed geniuses don't inspire any confidence in me.
They have a tendency to buy stuff from ACME Corp.


You categorize people who know who the VP is as geniuses. Interesting.

You're currently Farkied as "Potato", but I'm going to have to add "Easily mesmerized" to that.
 
2012-11-10 08:35:05 PM  

jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.


Seems to be a trend...
 
2012-11-10 08:35:38 PM  

rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?


*troll grin*

I guess that would be my bad:)

//Just trying to show that not all facts are facts depending on the perception of the viewer. Question 5 of Namadad's you can't vote hypothetical.

/wasn't intentionally a troll just came out that way eventually.
 
2012-11-10 08:36:16 PM  
derp

yousaywut: I am not being willfully obtuse I am arguing that a theory is not a fact if it cannot be proven.


YES, you are.
I did not say the "theory of evolution" was a FACT.
I said that evolution was a fact. They are completely different things, but you went with what you thought you read, rather that what was actually written.

Evolution is a fact. It happens everyday. The theory explaining evolution is a mutable THING, which continues to grow and be improved upon as human knowledge expands.
The likelihood that the current understanding of evolution is completely WRONG is close to zero, if not vanishingly small. I would give you huge odds that it will be improved, but not overturned or explained in a completely different theory.

Unlike, say, the big bang theory, which who the fark knows what theory might replace that.

But go ahead, keep being a pedant if that is what you want to talk about.
 
2012-11-10 08:36:52 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Horses were one doglike-badger-thingys


Millions of years, still not giving a fark.

www.badassoftheweek.com
 
2012-11-10 08:37:08 PM  

dericwater: 4) Evolution is a FACT. The theory of evolution supports and explains the fact of evolution. Replace "evolution" with "gravity" and see how that works. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity supports and explains the fact of gravity. BTW, the theory of evolution is much more robust and fully detailed in its explanation of the fact of evolution than the current theory of gravity is in explaining the fact of gravity. Scientists still don't know what the mechanism is for objects to "tell each other their presence" so that gravity works. Are they gravitons? Warping of the space-time continuum? Vibrations of superstrings?


oooooooooooooooooo thanks
I like the gravity analogy. YANK - stolen
 
2012-11-10 08:38:31 PM  

MurphyMurphy: yousaywut: A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed.

Yes, and electricity is a myth because we can't see it. As is wind.

And space? Not real... well at least not to the extent they would have us believe. Likely a veil of some sort placed there by a creator that knew we would look outwards and be shocked if we saw heaven.

Gravity is the biggest lie of them all. All they know is that things do fall when we toss them up, nothing more.

It's all actually God magic and man should not presume so much into the world of the unknown. We know nothing beyond that which can be readily observed on my front porch by me and my dog Trigger. THAT IS PURE SCIENCE FACT. In fact there are only TWO facts humans know: water is wet and Freedom.

ffs

The entire bone structures and biology of large mammals in the sea are those of land animals that evolved into sea life. Horses were one doglike-badger-thingys, In fact, all land mammals came from those that survived the dino-die-off (small little rodent-like bastards) so in a way, yes, a dog did become a cow.

You walk around with at least a dozen vestigial traits your body has zero need for but nature has burdened you with none-the-less.

What do you think observing the fossil record is, if not witnessing history? As so many different species' DNA is mapped and cataloged we are starting to be able to show a type of 'genetic evolutionary paper trail'. We have found our species mitochondrial Eve, we HAVE PROVEN these things to be true.

I'm all for calling a scientist out on his shiat when he makes unqualified claims. But there is a far cry between that and decrying science itself because you personally (in all your wisdom and glory) just feel they haven't proven things well enough to your Joe-Everyman-Logic standards.

Are there any other sciences you'd like to deny the validity of because you didn't happen to see them occur real-time in front of your fa ...


Nope I'm good:)
 
2012-11-10 08:40:13 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.

Seems to be a trend...


Now don't tell me you're still butthurt about that stupid election?
Get over it.
 
2012-11-10 08:41:06 PM  

namatad: derpyousaywut: I am not being willfully obtuse I am arguing that a theory is not a fact if it cannot be proven.

YES, you are.
I did not say the "theory of evolution" was a FACT.
I said that evolution was a fact. They are completely different things, but you went with what you thought you read, rather that what was actually written.

Evolution is a fact. It happens everyday. The theory explaining evolution is a mutable THING, which continues to grow and be improved upon as human knowledge expands.
The likelihood that the current understanding of evolution is completely WRONG is close to zero, if not vanishingly small. I would give you huge odds that it will be improved, but not overturned or explained in a completely different theory.

Unlike, say, the big bang theory, which who the fark knows what theory might replace that.

But go ahead, keep being a pedant if that is what you want to talk about.


Again nope I'm good. I have already changed the answer to True as written so there is that.

Still think you need to reword the WMD question but that's just my opinion man.
 
2012-11-10 08:41:40 PM  

yousaywut: namatad: Silly Jesus: Would you be in favor of voters having to demonstrate some modicum of intelligence / relevant knowledge prior to voting?


4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

Just because your bias wants all of these to be true does not make it so. So you probably shouldn't ask your questions the way they were asked or people will not be able to vote without disconnecting from reality. Just saying we all have our political beliefs and facts are facts just as theories are theories. Theory of relativity fact or theory?

//just saying perception is reality and you are perceiving facts that are not.


Evolution is a demonstrable FACT. There are theories about how evolution happens: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.
 
2012-11-10 08:41:47 PM  

yousaywut: A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed


Yeah!! and I didn't come outta no monkey's butt!
 
2012-11-10 08:42:07 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.

Seems to be a trend...

Now don't tell me you're still butthurt about that stupid election?
Get over it.


I voted for Obama.

Do you always herp when you derp?
 
2012-11-10 08:43:57 PM  

Gough: yousaywut: namatad: Silly Jesus: Would you be in favor of voters having to demonstrate some modicum of intelligence / relevant knowledge prior to voting?


4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

Just because your bias wants all of these to be true does not make it so. So you probably shouldn't ask your questions the way they were asked or people will not be able to vote without disconnecting from reality. Just saying we all have our political beliefs and facts are facts just as theories are theories. Theory of relativity fact or theory?

//just saying perception is reality and you are perceiving facts that are not.

Evolution is a demonstrable FACT. There are theories about how evolution happens: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.


Does anyone actually read the entirety of a discussion before jumping in? Just curious.
 
2012-11-10 08:45:33 PM  

randomjsa: A slicker liar could have won, and still might.

Somebody might want to tell him that Obama did win.

Of course, it's not only that Obama is a much bigger liar and distorter of reality, it's that the media doesn't call him on it because they're in the tank for him. If they're not helping him lie then they're actively working to give him a pass on everything he screws up.


I don't think there's a bowl big enough to hold all the dicks you deserve to choke on.
 
2012-11-10 08:45:59 PM  

Harry_Seldon: MurphyMurphy: Horses were one doglike-badger-thingys

Millions of years, still not giving a fark.

[www.badassoftheweek.com image 408x304]


The badger maims, but he does not kill.
 
2012-11-10 08:46:28 PM  

rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?


Welcome to Fark, where we can turn the most mundane conversations into the biggest political flame war.
 
2012-11-10 08:48:12 PM  

dericwater: Because many of the sane republicans voted for Obama. Only the die-hard nutbags voted for Romney.


Ayup. Republican here who hasn't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since 1988.
 
2012-11-10 08:48:37 PM  

yousaywut: Cpl.D: yousaywut: 4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

I see you've fallen for the usual creationist trap of thinking the "Theory of Evolution" means "theory" in the common useage of the word. It is not. It's a theory in the scientific method. A scientific theory isn't a guess. It's fact. A guess is a "hypothesis".

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact). I think it may become a fact within our lifetime or be completely disproven and become another oops in scientific history.) Make no mistake I am not a creationist I am merely skeptical of calling an unproven theory a fact.


Stop it! You're being an ignorant ass pretending you know anything about science.

Evolution is a FACT. It exists. People try to explain why (as opposed to closing their eyes and ignoring all the signs of evolution). People see evolution have occurred and is occurring. They need to provide a mechanism to explain why it happens. Why do they? Because the initial thought would be stasis: that is, nothing changes. That would be the default assumption. If you leave a rock on the ground, it just doesn't move around by itself. That's what people would assume with biological entities. Man begets man, dogs beget dogs. No change. But, we look at the biome over long course of time (and in some instances, not that long), and note that there are indeed changes. Those changes are the FACTS. Those changes are the smoking gun indicating that there is no stasis.

To explain it, there were a number of hypotheses. Please note that ALL these competing hypotheses are attempts to EXPLAIN THE FACT OF EVOLUTION. The only one that doesn't is Creationism, which denies the fact of evolution and assumes a static biological world, one that has never changed.

If there were a dead person with a bullet hole in the head, a smoking gun nearby, competing theories might be: 1) a stranger was the killer, 2) a known acquaintance as the killer, or 3) suicide. The analogy to creationism would suggest that a large boulder rolled over an alligator. Creationism doesn't even acknowledge the facts that everyone else sees. In the analogy with evolution, some theories include, of course, natural selection, Lamarckism, Lysenkoism, and several others. Natural selection, of course, is the one theory that has stood the test of time, and more current research with regards to DNA and such have only bolstered NS. All other failed theories, nonetheless, were proposed to try to EXPLAIN THE FACT OF EVOLUTION. None of them tried to deny that fact.
 
2012-11-10 08:49:00 PM  

jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.


perfect example of a large segment of the population that just insists on denying fact because they've been convinced to do so.

They construct a doubt beyond any reasonable scientific standard and then re-brand the science as belief,
therefore making ACTUAL FACTS equal or lesser to their own unsubstantiated beliefs.

Once your beliefs are equal to someone elses facts, all you have to do is get people to believe.
No thinking required. No science, no proof or evidence.

"You think we need to pay for our debts with revenue?
HA! If we just cut all revenue I believe revenue will just come pouring in."

And we get that and more:

"Obama didn't really win.
There is no mandate.
We need to double down and go further to the right.
Socialism is destroying the nation,
Obama is ruining America, he spent 16 trillion dollars,
we need to cut taxes, strip all social spending and bring God back into everything if we want to restore our nation to prosperity."

Evolution is just one of many trees in their forest of lies we need to cut down before the people blindly wandering can see the landscape for what it is.
 
2012-11-10 08:50:15 PM  

Gough: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc.


There is only Natural Selection. Gould and Llewellen considered 'Puncutated Equilibrium' to be a refinement of Darwin. Dawkins' so-called 'fractal time' response makes much more sense, thougn. 'Puncutated Equilibrium' is just more of the same.
 
2012-11-10 08:51:40 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.

Seems to be a trend...

Now don't tell me you're still butthurt about that stupid election?
Get over it.

I voted for Obama.

Do you always herp when you derp?


If you are trying to make a case for empowering anyone to decide whether anyone else is "smart enough" to vote, you aren't doing a very good job.
 
2012-11-10 08:52:34 PM  

cman: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Welcome to Fark, where we can turn the most mundane conversations into the biggest political flame war.


But Bevets isn't even here.
 
2012-11-10 08:52:54 PM  

namatad: Silly Jesus: Would you be in favor of voters having to demonstrate some modicum of intelligence / relevant knowledge prior to voting?

sure (all the questions are true or false)
1) president obama was born in america
2) president obama is a christian
3) the universe is over 8000 years old
4) evolution is a fact. our understanding of its processes are theoretical
5) there were and are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
6) 9/11 really happened

we dont even need to LET the voter know the right answer
if they answer false for 1 of the questions, their vote doesnt count
if they answer false to 2-5 of the questions, their vote wont count for the rest of their life
if they answer false to all 6 questions, they are taken out back and shot

TADA
problem solved


1)To the extent of my knowledge, true. I've seen nothing to prove otherwise.
2)Don't really know what his religious affiliation is, publically or personally, so C) I do not know.
3)True
4)True
5)This one I have a point of contention with, as it is fact that Saddam used mustard gas in a genocidal attack on the Kurds in 1988. I was under the understanding that chemical attacks utilizing mustard gas, VX, cyanide compunds, etc. were considered weapons of mass destruction. So were there? Yes. Are there? There has been no evidence of that uncovered since the deposing of Saddam. A true or false is not applicable here as written.
6)True. 9/11 happened. Sort of troll bait, that one.
 
2012-11-10 08:53:51 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.

Seems to be a trend...

Now don't tell me you're still butthurt about that stupid election?
Get over it.

I voted for Obama.

Do you always herp when you derp?

If you are trying to make a case for empowering anyone to decide whether anyone else is "smart enough" to vote, you aren't doing a very good job.


NO!, YOU!
 
2012-11-10 08:54:15 PM  

dericwater: yousaywut: Cpl.D: yousaywut: 4: false which is why it's called evolutionary theory or the theory of evolution. (we don't know enough about the universe to call this a fact yet)

I see you've fallen for the usual creationist trap of thinking the "Theory of Evolution" means "theory" in the common useage of the word. It is not. It's a theory in the scientific method. A scientific theory isn't a guess. It's fact. A guess is a "hypothesis".

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

True enough but it is still a theory in the common use of the word as well. It is the best theory we have at the moment but there are certain questions that stop it from becoming fact. Such as irreducible complexity and of course missing links. (I am not denying evolution just saying it is not yet a fact). I think it may become a fact within our lifetime or be completely disproven and become another oops in scientific history.) Make no mistake I am not a creationist I am merely skeptical of calling an unproven theory a fact.

Stop it! You're being an ignorant ass pretending you know anything about science.

Evolution is a FACT. It exists. People try to explain why (as opposed to closing their eyes and ignoring all the signs of evolution). People see evolution have occurred and is occurring. They need to provide a mechanism to explain why it happens. Why do they? Because the initial thought would be stasis: that is, nothing changes. That would be the default assumption. If you leave a rock on the ground, it just doesn't move around by itself. That's what people would assume with biological entities. Man begets man, dogs beget dogs. No change. But, we look at the biome over long course of time (and in some instances, not that long), and note that there are indeed changes. ...


Another douche heard from.

/Facts have been presented and my answer based on the original question has been altered to read True evolution exists.

//Your argument is stale and regurgitated.
 
2012-11-10 08:56:55 PM  

yousaywut: Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.


Don't make me hit you with this Archaeopteryx fossil. Wings like a bird. Teeth like a dinosaur. Consider your thoughts changed.
 
2012-11-10 08:59:13 PM  

Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.

Seems to be a trend...

Now don't tell me you're still butthurt about that stupid election?
Get over it.

I voted for Obama.

Do you always herp when you derp?

If you are trying to make a case for empowering anyone to decide whether anyone else is "smart enough" to vote, you aren't doing a very good job.

NO!, YOU!


I'm not trying to make that case. I don't think I'm smart enough to say who does or doesn't get to vote. I don't think anybody is. You certainly aren't. Don't mean that as an insult - I'm just pointing it out.
 
2012-11-10 08:59:52 PM  

yousaywut: Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.


If you're holding out for a "crocoduck" then you will probably never be satisfied, but presented for your consideration:

Liger - When a lion gets jiggy with a tiger, the resulting offspring is macroscopically different from either parent.

Tiktaalik - a transitional tetrapod fossil. But where is the missing link between fish and Tiktaalik???

Antennapedia - a homeobox gene in fruit flies which determines whether limbs develop as legs or antennae.

Phylogenetic tree - who's your daddy? It goes much deeper than just men and monkeys.

Evolution of the eye - Pond scum, planaria, and photographers have a surprising amount in common.

If you have the time, I highly encourage you to spend a few hours browsing those Wikipedia pages and following some of the links to learn what evolution really is. The "intelligent design" people aren't just out of their league, they're not even playing the same game.
 
2012-11-10 09:01:39 PM  

PanicMan: yousaywut: Evolution does occur on a micro scale adaptation does occur on a micro scale these are facts proven and witnessed many times over. A bird does not become a fish nor a dog a cow nor has any other such Macro-evolutionary predictive model been proven/witnessed. That is why I say it is a theory in the traditional sense. If/when such a change is proven I will happily change my thoughts on the matter. Until then don't be so sure that you cannot be wrong that you come off looking exactly like the obtuse and ignorant person you are claiming I am.

Don't make me hit you with this Archaeopteryx fossil. Wings like a bird. Teeth like a dinosaur. Consider your thoughts changed.


LOL. The head pictures of such an action made me laugh.

AKA imagine that.

My thoughts were changed long before this. I added words (in my head) to a question/statement then responded to the misinterpreted statement and ..............get this now.............I was incorrect and have since changed my position regarding the truthiness of said statement.
 
2012-11-10 09:01:44 PM  
Hey, I had a woman on Facebook tell me that the only way to curb abortion is by banning them completely, that access and knowledge about birth control is plenty widespread, that birth control doesn't work and the number-one reason women abort is because of birth control failure (???). She also insisted that the only "comprehensive sex education" that works is teaching abstinence. Then she told me how sorry she felt for me that I didn't understand any of these things.

So, you know. People will just fervently believe what they want to believe, no matter how many numbers you can produce, no matter how many doctors and scientists put forth objective facts, no matter how many studies or cases you can reference. It simply doesn't matter. People will just tell themselves they're right, the polls are skewed, the numbers are wrong, the studies are biased, the researchers have ulterior motives, and so they continue telling themselves they're right and everyone else is mistaken.
 
2012-11-10 09:02:32 PM  

jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: Silly Jesus: jso2897: rynthetyn: How did this turn into a flame war over evolution?

Beats the shiat outta me.

Seems to be a trend...

Now don't tell me you're still butthurt about that stupid election?
Get over it.

I voted for Obama.

Do you always herp when you derp?

If you are trying to make a case for empowering anyone to decide whether anyone else is "smart enough" to vote, you aren't doing a very good job.

NO!, YOU!

I'm not trying to make that case. I don't think I'm smart enough to say who does or doesn't get to vote. I don't think anybody is. You certainly aren't. Don't mean that as an insult - I'm just pointing it out.


Your position is asinine. Nobody could possibly set a baseline for knowledge? IQ test? US Naturalization Test? One question "Who is the VP?" test. You don't think that anyone exists of sufficient intelligence to implement such a test, including you? You're at least literate. Don't sell yourself short. I at least have faith in you that you could pass the most basic of these tests.
 
2012-11-10 09:03:34 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Antennapedia


The insect encyclopedia that anybug can edit.

(Sorry, the rest of your post was gold but I basically have the sense of humor of a twelve-year-old.)
 
2012-11-10 09:04:32 PM  

Ivo Shandor: yousaywut: Sounds good:) I wish I could stick around to see evolution proven on a macro scale Cause that would be awesome.

If you're holding out for a "crocoduck" then you will probably never be satisfied, but presented for your consideration:

Liger - When a lion gets jiggy with a tiger, the resulting offspring is macroscopically different from either parent.

Tiktaalik - a transitional tetrapod fossil. But where is the missing link between fish and Tiktaalik???

Antennapedia - a homeobox gene in fruit flies which determines whether limbs develop as legs or antennae.

Phylogenetic tree - who's your daddy? It goes much deeper than just men and monkeys.

Evolution of the eye - Pond scum, planaria, and photographers have a surprising amount in common.

If you have the time, I highly encourage you to spend a few hours browsing those Wikipedia pages and following some of the links to learn what evolution really is. The "intelligent design" people aren't just out of their league, they're not even playing the same game.


I knew about the Liger which is one helluva awesome creature. 600lbs of meat eating 60mph running terror. Some of the others I had heard of but haven't studied. Really biology is not my area of study.
 
2012-11-10 09:04:44 PM  

Silly Jesus: Your position is asinine. Nobody could possibly set a baseline for knowledge? IQ test? US Naturalization Test? One question "Who is the VP?" test. You don't think that anyone exists of sufficient intelligence to implement such a test, including you? You're at least literate. Don't sell yourself short. I at least have faith in you that you could pass the most basic of these tests.


Wasn't this whole test thing tried before in the States? Do you remember how that went?

Also you would fail any test for being a Trump supporter.
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report