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.

(Scientific American)   Is the answer A) You're a moron, B) You're a moron, or C) You're a moran?   (blogs.scientificamerican.com) divider line 288
    More: Stupid, literal interpretations, evolution, pseudosciences, necessarily true, Darwinian, draw backs, history of science, frame of references  
•       •       •

9011 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Nov 2012 at 8:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 05:13:01 PM  

IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science


Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.


You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".

vactech: 0z79: Sorry atheists, but you're even worse than those who believe in Intelligent Design.

The great significance of your post requires us to recogonize your establishment of a method of awareness of an intellectual excellence over both groups referenced.


Imagine this: You hold deep-seated, personal beliefs that you're attacked over when you go to school.
You learn things in school that you share with family members, only to be told "You = teh DEBBIL!!"

Neither group will stop harassing you. You know they're both full of shiat, just in different ways; atheists don't believe in the "heart"; creationists don't believe whatever conflicts with their (incomplete) interpretation of the Bible.

You HAVE to deal with both groups without hurting any feelings.

YOU try NOT developing contempt for both, asscheese.
 
2012-11-21 05:20:28 PM  

IlGreven: FloydA: The person to which you are replying is not willing or able to engage in reasonable or informed discussion, but the fact is that humans are apes, and apes are mammals. If we want to use the colloquial definition of "reptiles," then mammals are a subset (descendants of Synapsida) of Reptilia, since some extinct reptiles are more closely related to mammals than they are to other reptiles. And if we use the colloquial definition of "fish," then all of the amniotes are a sub-set of fish as well, since the amniote tetrapods are all vertebrates, and the bony, jawed fish (also vertebrates) are more closely related to the terrestrial tetrapods than they are to the Agnatha and Chondrichthyes.

In newer cladistic models, the term "fish" is actually polyphyletic. The only way they can fit all species of what we now deem "fish" in the same classification makes the "fish" class synonymous with "chordates". Humans are also chordates. It's kinda hard to believe that we're fish.

Of course, many in the scientific community are still struggling with the fact that humans are monkeys, because apes must be a subset of monkeys. Think of it this way: The ancestor for all "old-world primates" and "new-world primates" would be classified as a monkey. If she was not, then the monkey class evolved separately twice (once at the old-world/new-world split, and once after apes branched off the old-world primate line), the odds of which are on the scale of the number of quarks in the universe to one. Meaning either monkey is a polyphyletic term (such as fish is), or apes are monkeys, too.


Exactly my point. If you want to call "fish" a clade, then humans are part of it Ditto Chordates. Vertebrates, tetrapods, amniotes, reptiles, mammals, monkeys, and apes.

If my "cousin" is a relative, my sibling must be a relative too.
 
2012-11-21 05:22:18 PM  

0z79: IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science


Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".


I do believe you missed the point. If you "believe everything" you read in science books, then I don't think you really understand science.
 
2012-11-21 05:30:28 PM  

IC Stars: 0z79: IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science


Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".

I do believe you missed the point. If you "believe everything" you read in science books, then I don't think you really understand science.


I understand that science is the discipline of finding an answer that works for now, unless we learn differently... and provides nifty things like the computers we're typing on, plus the internet that allows us to communicate.

I also understand that opinions like those that you seem to cling to, are what make people who don't see how someone can have faith, turn to contempt.
 
2012-11-21 05:39:20 PM  

0z79: IC Stars: 0z79: IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science


Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".

I do believe you missed the point. If you "believe everything" you read in science books, then I don't think you really understand science.

I understand that science is the discipline of finding an answer that works for now, unless we learn differently... and provides nifty things like the computers we're typing on, plus the internet that allows us to communicate.

I also understand that opinions like those that you seem to cling to, are what make people who don't see how someone can have faith, turn to contempt.


You're still not understanding what he's saying. He is neither attacking you nor defending religion. He only pointed out the error in "/believes everything she reads on science". He's pointing out that, while you should embrace science as you have, you should remain somewhat skeptical of scientific claims as well, as there will always be mistakes and errors.
 
2012-11-21 05:45:41 PM  
It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.
 
2012-11-21 06:18:06 PM  

0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.


OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

i105.photobucket.com

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.
 
2012-11-21 06:37:37 PM  

red5ish: Science believes in evolution


Terrible word usage. Evolution isn't a belief system, it is a theory accepted by scientific methodology. You don't "believe" in evolution, you accept it as the most plausible theory.

Moreover, science doesn't "believe" in anything. It is a process for understanding the natural world and its faculties.
 
2012-11-21 06:38:45 PM  

FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.


I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.
 
2012-11-21 06:41:08 PM  

Millennium: Evolution is a theory: an interpretation of the facts at hand that has, so far, stood up under the testing we've put it to. To "promote" it to a fact,


Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities, and a Theory in science is the HIGHEST form of probability that science can bestow.

A Theory in science is a framework of laws that explain a natural process. There is nothing more robust and more reliable in scientific discourse than a Theory.
 
2012-11-21 06:46:06 PM  

walkingtall: Nature doesnt create codes. Yet we are to believe the most complex code in the universe, DNA,


DNA isn't a code.

We just call it that for ease of human understanding and classification. It's still just biochemical logic which happens naturally (tetravalent carbon chains, etc.)
 
2012-11-21 06:50:23 PM  

0z79: FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.



OK. I put forward the mainstream science position. You responded by claiming that presenting this case is, in your opinion, "unwarranted hostility."

Is there any way, in your mind, that disagreement with your claims might be something other than hostility? Or do you consider all disagreements "hostile"?

If you start from the assumption that your opponents are being "hostile" for not simply accepting your assertions or for holding a different opinion, then I'm not sure we can ever proceed.

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without hostility?
 
2012-11-21 06:51:37 PM  

walkingtall: For 140 years evoluiion theory stated in every textbook in the world that life evolved from some kind of organic soup.


Well, yes, if by "evolved from some kind of organic soup" you mean "developed over two billion years through complex chemical reactions based on really long, tetravalent carbon chains that bond well with nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen molecules in the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment that thanks to the turbulent, volcanic nature of early earth, frequently smashed together and through heat and pressure fused into organic peptides that were simple chemical polymers (repeating molecular structures, which occur naturally) that actively folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins which were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process to make more of themselves, and in time the accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids for use as insular membranes against harm that eventually became hardened cellular walls which permitted the formation of more symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption including nucleic acid and ribosomes, and once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement."
 
2012-11-21 06:57:01 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The idea that someone in my teenage peer group would have actually denied evolution boggles my mind.


So, now you know how an evolution-denier feels when someone tries to explain evolution to them. ;-)
 
2012-11-21 06:59:08 PM  

walkingtall: There is no scenario in which humans could live underwater.


Really. Because that actually happened.

This is himalayacetus:

www.uua.cn

It lived about 55 million years ago. Despite the limbs, it spent most of its time in water. Its fossil was found in the Himalayas (hence the name).... back when the mountain range was under water. It is considered the world's oldest cetacean, because it has a lot of similar characteristics to modern whales.

Now, according to evolutionary theory, we can make predictions based on this finding: If we look in rock dated between 50 million years ago and today, we should find similar fossils from the same family, and moreover, that these animals show a progressive gradation to modern whales.... gaining size, limbs transmogrifying to flippers, noses moving to the top of the head, that sort of thing. And so we go and look... and lo! That is EXACTLY what we find! The animals, in chronological order, that show this progression are:

Himalayacetus (55 mya)
Ambulocetus (50 mya)
Ichthyolestes (48 mya)
Rodhocetus (47 mya)
Artiocetus (46 mya)
Takracetus (45 mya)
Protocetus (44 mya)
Gaviacetus (42 mya)
Pakicetus (41 mya)
Nalacetus (40 mya)
Kutchicetus (39 mya)
Cynthiacetus (38 mya)
Remingtonocetus (37 mya)
Dalanistes (36 mya)
Georgiacetus (35 mya)
Basilosaurus (34 mya)
Dorudon (33 mya)
Zygorhiza (32 mya)
Simocetus (31 mya)
Pontogeneus (30 mya)
Waipatia (29 mya)
Kentriodon (28 mya)
Sulakocetus (26 mya)
Prosqualodon (25 mya)
Aulophyseter (23 mya)
Orycterocetus (21 mya)
Kogiopsis (20 mya)
Eurhinodelphis (18 mya)
Macrodelphinus (15 mya)
Livyatan melvillei (13 mya)
Goniodelphis (11 mya)
Brygmophyseter (10 mya)
Zygophyseter (8 mya)
Acrophyseter (6 mya)
Orcinus citoniensis (5 mya)
Odobenocetops (3 mya)
Parapontoporia (2 mya)

And this is only a fraction of the hundreds and hundreds of fossils found.

Now, what's fascinating isn't how many there are or how they're all different, but how they all line up in a perfect chronological pattern, that an animal, which once dwelt on land, slowly morphed into an apex predator of the sea. The theory of evolution predicted that we would find evidence like this, and we have, confirming its assertions.
 
2012-11-21 07:03:42 PM  

FloydA: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.


OK. I put forward the mainstream science position. You responded by claiming that presenting this case is, in your opinion, "unwarranted hostility."

Is there any way, in your mind, that disagreement with your claims might be something other than hostility? Or do you consider all disagreements "hostile"?

If you start from the assumption that your opponents are being "hostile" for not simply accepting your assertions or for holding a different opinion, then I'm not sure we can ever proceed.

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without hostility?


Dude, I AGREE WITH YOU. WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.

DO YOU READ ENGLISH?
IS ENGLISH YOUR FIRST LANGUAGE?
CAN YOU ANSWER THE PREVIOUS TWO QUESTIONS AND RESPOND WITH "YES" OR "NO"?

Okay then. We're on the same page so far.

Just because I don't agree with you on all points (which apparently include the fact that if you can't see it, eat it or fark it, it doesn't exist) doesn't mean I disagree with all of your points.

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."
 
2012-11-21 07:18:22 PM  

H31N0US: bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Because they evolved into apes. We evolved into humans. They chose...poorly.


This is so much better than the response I was going to give.
 
2012-11-21 07:29:33 PM  

satanorsanta: Kome: Did you know that if you flip a fair coin 1,000,000 times, you'll get several dozen occurrences of 100+ heads in a row. Purely by chance. You'll even get a few 1000+ heads in a row results. Looks like something is up with a coin if you get 1000 or even 100 heads in a row, but it happens.

I think that you are bad at statistics. Odds of flipping a fair coin and getting 100 heads in a row is 0.5^100 or 7.88^-31. One in a million is more like flipping a coin and getting 20 heads in a row.


Yes, I was exaggerating a psychotically massive deal (the actual equation is AN = 2N + 1 - 2 number of flips of a fair coin to get a streak of N; one would need over one nonillion - 1 followed by 30 zeros - flips to confidently expect a streak of 100), but in my defense I was mostly trying to get across a point about how over massive intervals of time when each second has a massive number of events occurring very improbable things do occur, with the unstated implication being that the evolutionary process of non-living, physical & chemical reactions eventually resulting in living, biological & chemical reactions eventually resulting in something akin to human beings is no different (at least, when trying to appeal to the chance argument). I suppose I could have used, as a different comparison, Littlewood's Law to get at that and come across as less of a moron, but it is what it is. Your critique is taken with appreciation, however, because I am often a stickler for precision in others and shouldn't try to justify my own lack of it.
 
2012-11-21 07:42:43 PM  

0z79: FloydA: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.


OK. I put forward the mainstream science position. You responded by claiming that presenting this case is, in your opinion, "unwarranted hostility."

Is there any way, in your mind, that disagreement with your claims might be something other than hostility? Or do you consider all disagreements "hostile"?

If you start from the assumption that your opponents are being "hostile" for not simply accepting your assertions or for holding a different opinion, then I'm not sure we can ever proceed.

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without hostility?

Dude, I AGREE WITH YOU. WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.

DO YOU READ ENGLISH?
IS ENGLISH YOUR FIRST LANGUAGE?
CAN YOU ANSWER THE PREVIOUS TWO QUESTIONS AND RESPOND WITH "YES" OR "NO"?

Okay then. We're on the same page so far.

Just because I don't agree with you on all points (which apparently include the fact that if you can't see it, eat it or fark it, it doesn't exist) doesn't mean I disagree with all of your points.

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."


Damn, you are an insufferable twat.
 
2012-11-21 07:42:56 PM  

0z79: I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."


Except for two points:
1) He doesn't do that. At least not on Fark. At the worst, someone could just reasonably point out that since we now understand a little more about X, there is less of a reason to appeal to unnecessary assumptions as explanatory devices. And while I consider myself a very strident and militant atheist, even I've never come to understand a phenomenon and have my reaction be "Ha ha, there is no god." Usually it's "Damn, reality is f*cking awesome. I'm glad I'm learning about it."
2) Your reaction requires unproven and unnecessary assumptions to be true and necessary.

At the end of the day, polite tone or hostile tone, your reaction is not logically valid even if you end up agreeing with FloydA on the understanding of the phenomenon in question. That is until you prove that the "He" you believe in exists (and remember, that's a lot harder to prove than just whether or not any "He" that has ever been believed in exists) and is a necessary casual factor in X, there is no reason to give your interpretation of X any credence. In other words, you may get the "correct answer" but you did so for wrong reasons.

And, on another note, if you see requiring logical consistency in an argument, or parsimony in an explanation, or meeting the burden of proof when making a claim as (in your own words earlier in the thread) "attacking those who have faith," then, quite frankly, no matter what your views about the natural world, you're a f*cking moron.
 
2012-11-21 07:43:36 PM  
Ugh.
I saw the headline and assumed he was teaching middle school or maybe even high school.
To deal with this crap with college-aged kids?
Pathetic. 

Nuke them. Corral all of them into their holy land and give them a month to renounce their animus towards civilization or face erasure.
 
2012-11-21 07:49:16 PM  

0z79: YOU try NOT developing contempt for both


Don't try on my account.

Please. By all means, let the butt hurt flow.

//0z79 reminds me of waldopepper. I miss that kid.
 
2012-11-21 07:51:35 PM  
i am entertained by educated people who cannot discern between fact and theory. you God haters can piss on the bible all you want but hey, you weren't there, it's all man-made shiat (theory) you are insisting is a big brick wall of truth and fact. grow up. scientific theories are proven wrong every year.
 
2012-11-21 07:59:50 PM  

ShuyaNanahara: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.


OK. I put forward the mainstream science position. You responded by claiming that presenting this case is, in your opinion, "unwarranted hostility."

Is there any way, in your mind, that disagreement with your claims might be something other than hostility? Or do you consider all disagreements "hostile"?

If you start from the assumption that your opponents are being "hostile" for not simply accepting your assertions or for holding a different opinion, then I'm not sure we can ever proceed.

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without hostility?

Dude, I AGREE WITH YOU. WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.

DO YOU READ ENGLISH?
IS ENGLISH YOUR FIRST LANGUAGE?
CAN YOU ANSWER THE PREVIOUS TWO QUESTIONS AND RESPOND WITH "YES" OR "NO"?

Okay then. We're on the same page so far.

Just because I don't agree with you on all points (which apparently include the fact that if you can't see it, eat it or fark it, it doesn't exist) doesn't mean I disagree with all of your points.

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Damn, you are an insufferable twat.


I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems, won't take crap from people like you and that makes me insufferable?

Should I just lie down and take it?
 
2012-11-21 08:08:45 PM  

hinten: d) Your Moran.


Your UH moran

/duh
 
2012-11-21 08:15:41 PM  

0z79: I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"


No, that's me who does that.

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Which is a reasonable stance for a religious person to take.
 
2012-11-21 08:21:17 PM  

KrispyKritter: i am entertained by educated people who cannot discern between fact and theory. you God haters can piss on the bible all you want but hey, you weren't there, it's all man-made shiat (theory) you are insisting is a big brick wall of truth and fact. grow up. scientific theories are proven wrong every year.


Which is why we don't treat theories as Gospel. You might not understand this, but evolutionary theory has gone through a lot of revisions and changes over the years as we've learned more about the history and workings of life. There are many things we know about today that Darwin never could have known. But none of the things we've learned has invalidated the fundamentals of Darwin's theory. They've only modified and strengthened it.
 
2012-11-21 08:21:36 PM  

Ed Grubermann: 0z79: I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

No, that's me who does that.

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Which is a reasonable stance for a religious person to take.


*snerk*
Stay classy. 

*wink*
 
2012-11-21 08:22:48 PM  

0z79:
I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems, won't take crap from people like you and that makes me insufferable?


I'm sorry, but what part of science is a "belief system"?
 
2012-11-21 08:29:20 PM  

Ed Grubermann: 0z79:
I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems, won't take crap from people like you and that makes me insufferable?

I'm sorry, but what part of science is a "belief system"?


Ostensibly? None.
 
2012-11-21 08:35:44 PM  

KrispyKritter: i am entertained by educated people who cannot discern between fact and theory. you God haters can piss on the bible all you want but hey, you weren't there, it's all man-made shiat (theory) you are insisting is a big brick wall of truth and fact. grow up. scientific theories are proven wrong every year.


I know you're a troll, but I'll bite anyway:

Understand that the people who attack evolution the most are evolutionary scientists. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept evolution at face value like some belief system. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks. If there were holes in the theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis would have found them by now. Instead, predictions are made -- and then proven -- that correctly validate evolutionary assertions.

That's what makes a theory a "Theory".
 
2012-11-21 08:43:54 PM  

Ishkur: walkingtall: Nature doesnt create codes. Yet we are to believe the most complex code in the universe, DNA,

DNA isn't a code.

We just call it that for ease of human understanding and classification. It's still just biochemical logic which happens naturally (tetravalent carbon chains, etc.)


this.
 
2012-11-21 08:45:07 PM  
I just realized something: I'm arguing deeply held beliefs on a web forum.

WHY OH WHY DO I ARGUE THAT WHICH I HOLD DEAR, WHY DO I INSIST IT = PENIS ON THE WEB!?

ON THE WEB PENIS ALWAYS = ANSWER!!!
 
2012-11-21 08:52:28 PM  
/just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be
 
2012-11-21 09:05:19 PM  

0z79: I just realized something: I'm arguing deeply held beliefs on a web forum.

WHY OH WHY DO I ARGUE THAT WHICH I HOLD DEAR, WHY DO I INSIST IT = PENIS ON THE WEB!?

ON THE WEB PENIS ALWAYS = ANSWER!!!


i1234.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-21 09:14:49 PM  

vactech: 0z79: I just realized something: I'm arguing deeply held beliefs on a web forum.

WHY OH WHY DO I ARGUE THAT WHICH I HOLD DEAR, WHY DO I INSIST IT = PENIS ON THE WEB!?

ON THE WEB PENIS ALWAYS = ANSWER!!!

[i1234.photobucket.com image 850x414]


I don't get the reference. That must mean that I'm not as knowledgeable about pop culture as you.

I feel so insecure... really, I do.
 
2012-11-21 09:25:46 PM  

0z79: vactech: 0z79: I just realized something: I'm arguing deeply held beliefs on a web forum.

WHY OH WHY DO I ARGUE THAT WHICH I HOLD DEAR, WHY DO I INSIST IT = PENIS ON THE WEB!?

ON THE WEB PENIS ALWAYS = ANSWER!!!

[i1234.photobucket.com image 850x414]

I don't get the reference. That must mean that I'm not as knowledgeable about pop culture as you.

I feel so insecure... really, I do.


No I'm sorry. I was also confused (and aroused).

You were saying something about deeply held penis and feeling insecure...do go on.
 
2012-11-21 09:33:10 PM  
Time to abandon this thread. The 12 year olds have found it
 
2012-11-21 09:38:17 PM  

Millennium: DAD 20165: I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.

It's not a matter of confidence; it's a matter of how direct the experience we have with it is. Facts are data, while theories are interpretations of that data (specifically, interpretations that stand up under testing; interpretations that haven't been tested are hypotheses).

Evolution is a theory: an interpretation of the facts at hand that has, so far, stood up under the testing we've put it to. To "promote" it to a fact, we'd have to see one species split off from another in the lab as it happens, but evolution happens over such large time scales that this isn't currently practical (and might never be).


Yours is the first good argument I've seen to this. I think it's obvious that we and all living things have evolved. You can't argue that. We're bigger and smarter ( well kind of after reading some these post I have doubts) but my other statements still holds true as well the bible isn't just a collection of good stories for the kiddies. Some of the laws and other prohibitions in it are grounded in scientific fact. Until we had developed to a point that we understood how to better preserve food or cure certain illness these laws protected us from ourselves science has proved this out time and again. So science at the time was to youg to understand what we know now. And is still to young to explain how say we evolved to what we are today.cbut that won't keep the nut jobs from saying God did it I believe it or the uber scientist from saying we evolved from organic green slime either or I don't care. But to continue fighting over stuff we don't understand at that level fully yet is just dumb. It is fun though :)) just not worth killing and fighting over.
 
2012-11-21 09:39:09 PM  

babtras: Time to abandon this thread. The 12 year olds have found it


Too bad. The weekly fark atheist vs theist thread RUINED DAMN IT!

bie?
 
2012-11-21 09:39:39 PM  

babtras: Time to abandon this thread. The 12 year olds have found it


Why did I let you trolls cost me reputation here?
 
2012-11-21 09:42:32 PM  

sp86: You're confusing the nomenclature. Suffice it to say that Evolution is both a Scientific Theory and a Fact.


Here's someone much smarter than me to explain it.

Stephen Jay Gould: Evolution as Fact and Theory
 
2012-11-21 09:52:37 PM  
I always find it amusing how hung up creationists get on how life started in scientific theory, but how unbothered they are about how God got started in their theology.
 
2012-11-21 10:07:01 PM  

johnryan51: One fossil of a modern dog,cat,rabbit etc. That's all they need to find to disprove evolution. Were waiting......


That's interesting. I've always looked at the fossil record as a way to prove the theory of evolution, not as a way to DISprove the, um, theory of creationism. I am really liking this thread and learning some good cocktail party conversation stuff!
 
2012-11-21 10:19:31 PM  

Kome: 0z79: I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Except for two points:
1) He doesn't do that. At least not on Fark. At the worst, someone could just reasonably point out that since we now understand a little more about X, there is less of a reason to appeal to unnecessary assumptions as explanatory devices. And while I consider myself a very strident and militant atheist, even I've never come to understand a phenomenon and have my reaction be "Ha ha, there is no god." Usually it's "Damn, reality is f*cking awesome. I'm glad I'm learning about it."
2) Your reaction requires unproven and unnecessary assumptions to be true and necessary.

At the end of the day, polite tone or hostile tone, your reaction is not logically valid even if you end up agreeing with FloydA on the understanding of the phenomenon in question. That is until you prove that the "He" you believe in exists (and remember, that's a lot harder to prove than just whether or not any "He" that has ever been believed in exists) and is a necessary casual factor in X, there is no reason to give your interpretation of X any credence. In other words, you may get the "correct answer" but you did so for wrong reasons.

And, on another note, if you see requiring logical consistency in an argument, or parsimony in an explanation, or meeting the burden of proof when making a claim as (in your own words earlier in the thread) "attacking those who have faith," then, quite frankly, no matter what your views about the natural world, you're a f*cking moron.


Actually, man... I'm telling you, FloydA and all the rest to chill the fark out, because we're all on the same page.

So what if I've arrived at the same logical point as anyone else on this page, through drastically different means?

The point is, that I've arrived and am going "Hmm... so much bullshiat, but where does it come from?"

Here in the Internet age, as in every age before, the answer is: "Pride".
 
2012-11-21 10:33:30 PM  

0z79: So what if I've arrived at the same logical point as anyone else on this page, through drastically different means?


Because reasons matter. If you don't think so, you're part of the problem.

Why you believe what you believe is important, because it illustrates whether or not you have thought critically about the stimuli you are exposed to; the same stimuli that develop your understanding and perceptions of reality (by the way, I am using "you" in the kind of collective third person sense, even though my suspicion is that it very much does apply to you specifically as well based on other posts you've made). If, for example, you just take everyone you perceive to be an authority on X, Y, and Z at their word about X, Y, and Z, then whether you're believing in correct or incorrect things about X, Y, and Z doesn't matter because you can very easily be led astray by other, more manipulative people. At that point, you haven't arrived at "the same logical point." You are merely providing the same answer on a test. The route you took to get there is not logical at all.

The point is, that I've arrived and am going "Hmm... so much bullshiat, but where does it come from?"

Except, first you haven't (reason mentioned above) and you do not appear to be doing that all anyway. You just claim that certain perspectives that differ from you, particularly atheism, are bullsh*t without providing any real reasons as to why, and personally attack those who hold those positions, as you've done with a few people in this thread who were not provocative with you in the least. I will be provocative, because I feel no reason to not treat a f*cking moron as a f*cking moron, but your responses to some other people in this thread who have merely responded to you in a neutral way in order to either (a) provide an alternative perspective or (b) ask you questions to learn a little more about where you're coming from is shameful. Grow up, child. There's so much more to life than your current pathetically narrow and condescending viewpoint.
 
2012-11-21 10:35:23 PM  

0z79: Actually, man... I'm telling you, FloydA and all the rest to chill the fark out, because we're all on the same page.

So what if I've arrived at the same logical point as anyone else on this page, through drastically different means?



You're not even in the same book, let alone page. The means by which you've arrived at "the same" conclusions provide absolutely no useful information. "God did it" is useless. We'd still be living in caves if we accepted that answer to every question.
 
2012-11-21 10:42:05 PM  

Kome: 0z79: So what if I've arrived at the same logical point as anyone else on this page, through drastically different means?

Because reasons matter. If you don't think so, you're part of the problem.

Why you believe what you believe is important, because it illustrates whether or not you have thought critically about the stimuli you are exposed to; the same stimuli that develop your understanding and perceptions of reality (by the way, I am using "you" in the kind of collective third person sense, even though my suspicion is that it very much does apply to you specifically as well based on other posts you've made). If, for example, you just take everyone you perceive to be an authority on X, Y, and Z at their word about X, Y, and Z, then whether you're believing in correct or incorrect things about X, Y, and Z doesn't matter because you can very easily be led astray by other, more manipulative people. At that point, you haven't arrived at "the same logical point." You are merely providing the same answer on a test. The route you took to get there is not logical at all.

The point is, that I've arrived and am going "Hmm... so much bullshiat, but where does it come from?"

Except, first you haven't (reason mentioned above) and you do not appear to be doing that all anyway. You just claim that certain perspectives that differ from you, particularly atheism, are bullsh*t without providing any real reasons as to why, and personally attack those who hold those positions, as you've done with a few people in this thread who were not provocative with you in the least. I will be provocative, because I feel no reason to not treat a f*cking moron as a f*cking moron, but your responses to some other people in this thread who have merely responded to you in a neutral way in order to either (a) provide an alternative perspective or (b) ask you questions to learn a little more about where you're coming from is shameful. Grow up, child. There's so much more to life than your current pathetically narrow and condescending viewpoint


Hey, maybe if I weren't used to all non-faith people assuming I'm an idiot..


BTW, re-read some of these posts, people here have all but called me an idiot.
 
2012-11-21 10:49:32 PM  

DAD 20165: Yours is the first good argument I've seen to this.


Why? It's not even entirely accurate.

DAD 20165: the bible isn't just a collection of good stories for the kiddies.


I would hope not. It's one of the most perverse books ever written, full of rape, incest, genocide, torture, suffering, misery, confusion and death, and all at the behest of a vengeful, fickle, capricious jealous violent God who, for most of the book, expressed nothing other than extreme selfishness and total contempt for mankind.

DAD 20165: Some of the laws and other prohibitions in it are grounded in scientific fact.


They thought that bats were birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), insects had four legs (Leviticus 11:20), rabbits chew cud (Leviticus 11:6), doctors can't cure people as well as God (2 Chronicles 16:12-13), the number Pi was 3 (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2), ostriches didn't take care of their eggs (Job 39:13-16), stars were smaller than the Earth (Revelation 8:10), the moon had its own light source (Isaiah 13:10), the Earth existed before the sun (Genesis 1:1), and they knew absolutely nothing about female physiology (Deuteronomy 22:13-16). They also thought the heart, not the brain, was the center of thought, emotion and moral understanding (dozens of references, but especially Luke 6:45). There's also some 60 references, give or take, to the Earth being a flat circular disk, a flat square, fixed, supported by pillars or a foundation of some sort, surrounded by water, unmoving, unchanging or at the center of the solar system. Whenever they describe the dimensions of the Earth, there's never any mention of it being a sphere, circling the sun, or rotating on an axis.

DAD 20165: And is still to young to explain how say we evolved to what we are today.cbut that won't keep the nut jobs from saying God did it I believe it or the uber scientist from saying we evolved from organic green slime either or I don't care. But to continue fighting over stuff we don't understand at that level fully yet is just dumb.


Ah yes, the Argument from Ignorance.

The problem with this attitude is that it is defeatist. Since we do not know the ultimate answers now, we probably won't ever know them so why bother trying to even understand natural phenomenon? You're essentially saying we should all throw our hands in the air and give up.

But here's the thing: Once upon a time we thought that diseases were the work of sorcery, lightning was divine punishment, comets were harbingers of doom, rainbows had a pot of gold, insanity was possession by evil spirits, and the sun and moon were magical orbs that traded turns in the sky. Did science stop studying these things just because there were already sufficient answers for them and any naturalistic explanation is superfluous (or even futile)? Of course not. Science is extremely hostile to what it doesn't understand specifically BECAUSE it doesn't understand.

Today, we have annihilated the mysticism in those things because we sought to understand them and we discovered microorganisms, electricity, astronomy, the refraction of light through water molecules, psychiatric disorders, and the composition of heavenly bodies and the effects of gravity on mass. As we learn more about the Universe, the domain of the supernatural keeps shrinking.

We are now on the cusp of doing the same -- finding a naturalistic explanation -- for life origins and the ultimate beginning of everything, and we can hardly blame science for expecting this trend to continue.
 
2012-11-21 10:56:49 PM  

ghall3: For those literal bible interpreters I like to ask them about the flood and how there was enough food for all the animals to re-populate considering many of them are natural predators of each other. I know there are a lot of components missing from my argument (like plants and trees, how did they come back?)

However in college we had to argue a topic in philosophy class and creation vs evolution was the one my group got. So we brought in a chemical engineer who was also a young earth creationist and asked that question....and stumped him. He had no idea how to answer it.

/CSB


They can actually explain anything away by saying that god is all powerful and can do anything and make anything happen. Magic in other words. Once someone believes that there can be no way to convince them of anything else.
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report