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.

(Economist)   Evolution taught humans to stand upright to see over the savannah...except we started standing upright before the savannah came about. You win this round Creationism. But just wait until we talk about the appendix   (economist.com) divider line 238
    More: Interesting, evolution, savannahs, creationisms, grasslands  
•       •       •

6805 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2013 at 8:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-20 01:06:08 PM

Ed Grubermann: Angels can't rebel. They don't have free will.


Angels can't do anything, because myths don't exist, just like Jesus.

the "adults" that do believe in angels can be pointed at and laughed at, because they are retarded
 
2013-02-20 01:09:37 PM
Diagonal:

Anyone who really accepts the savanna theory should be forced to try to survive, butte nekkid and without any tools, on African savanna for 72 hours. "See better" my hairy white butt.

Anyone who really accepts the aquatic ape theory should be forced to swim butt nekkid and without any tools in an African river.

/Aquatic ape supporters claim that crocodiles were not interested in eating hominids.
 
2013-02-20 01:11:52 PM
Evolution taught that we stood upright to see over the savannah?  Really.  Because I don't recall ever seeing anything, ever, anywhere, where evolution "teaches" that we stood upright to see over the savannah.  Has anyone ever theorized that we started standing in order to see over the savannah?  Yeah I think I've read that.  The leap from that to "evolution's validity is invested in the dogma that man first stood to see over the savannah" is continental.

Evolution also did not teach that we must save the whales, or that every snowflake should have a pony, or that we should move beyond gay marriage to marriage between chimpanzees and parakeets, or that only the United Nations knows who should and should not be permitted to swagger into a bar with a .38 strapped to this thigh.

/in case you were wondering
 
2013-02-20 01:11:55 PM
I remember being taught that it was likely that we evolved to walk upright because it was more efficient for carrying and using tools.  That also seems to make more sense, as a lot of animals in grassy areas can stand upright but still walk on all fours (ground dwelling rodents, for example) Obviously, it's always speculation as to why a trait was selected for over others, but I think there are a lot of reasons bipedal locomotion could have evolved besides "tall grass"
 
2013-02-20 01:24:47 PM

I drunk what: If creationism is true how come animals aren't still magically appearing? :D


They aren't? I read articles where we discover new species almost on a daily basis.
 
2013-02-20 01:27:09 PM
I think we all know the real reason we started standing upright.
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-02-20 01:31:12 PM

WippitGuud: I drunk what: If creationism is true how come animals aren't still magically appearing? :D

They aren't? I read articles where we discover new species almost on a daily basis.


24.media.tumblr.com

i can see how ordinary scientific evolution would appear to be miraculous magic to a simpleton like yourself, but don't worry about rational logic let the adults handle it
 
2013-02-20 01:33:05 PM

I_C_Weener: gadian: I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.

One word:  tail gloves.  Or maybe we'd call them socks.


I find it interesting (as does Douglas Hofstadter, who did a chapter of one of his books featuring them) that the German word for glove is literally "hand shoe."
 
2013-02-20 01:33:47 PM

I_C_Weener: gadian: I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.

Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?

Only if they were used for sexual purposes.  Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.


Humans being humans, do you think for one moment that we WOULDN'T use our tails for sexual gratification?
 
2013-02-20 01:34:44 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Oooh and the comments are off to a roaring start:


For Example,,We have a dozen theory's about aliens manipulating primates DNA for a labor force
advancing humanity beyond Darwin's wildest Dreams,,,Yet despite the Mountain of evidence mainstream refuses to look at it seriously..as though it is impossible so why bother looking.
The same thing happens every time New concepts are introduced..Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever..Same with Creationism..My better judgment says the jury is still out on this "origin of Man" issue.

Someone here needs to fess up. Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.


These clowns are creationists. They've just replaced God with aliens.
 
2013-02-20 01:42:03 PM

DaintySavage: sylwedydd: All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.

Seeing a bacteria develop the ability to use citrate as a nutrient source (over 20k+ generations while living on a citrate rich but normal nutrient poor media) when they did not originally have that ability seems like a text book case of evolution to me. I would like to see creationists provide some support of their theory that comes even close to that.


i'm ok you're ok
 
2013-02-20 01:49:08 PM

fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.


Yes. But longer lived plants like trees tend to have a greater concentration of the decayed isotopes versus grasses and such that are constantly replacing mass.
 
2013-02-20 01:52:56 PM

DaintySavage: sylwedydd: All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.

Seeing a bacteria develop the ability to use citrate as a nutrient source (over 20k+ generations while living on a citrate rich but normal nutrient poor media) when they did not originally have that ability seems like a text book case of evolution to me. I would like to see creationists provide some support of their theory that comes even close to that.


They can't. Creationist theory is based on religious writing taken at the literal level with, it appears, very little understanding. However for scientists to think that they have answers is, I believe, also suspect. (Although with far less dangerous consequences.)

Like most I enjoy my own little experiences of schadenfreude, and when a scientific 'certainty' isdisemboweled, well that's just tasty :)

As for your bacteria, seems they were quite hungry. Starved of normal nutrients they went for what they could digest (with difficulty?) and wasplentiful. Quite normal I would assume.

More Bordello please!
 
2013-02-20 01:53:09 PM

ciberido: Humans being humans, do you think for one moment that we WOULDN'T use our tails for sexual gratification?


There once was a well-endowed male
who was also well-blessed with a tail
During sex he'd employ it
To help her enjoy it
You're in luck girls... his love is for sale.
 
2013-02-20 01:56:35 PM

Fano: Slackfumasta: How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

Disobedient giraffes


No, the evolution of the giraffe is single-handedly the fault of Ford.

/read your bible!!!
 
2013-02-20 01:58:43 PM

Ed Grubermann: God Is My Co-Pirate: Oooh and the comments are off to a roaring start:


For Example,,We have a dozen theory's about aliens manipulating primates DNA for a labor force
advancing humanity beyond Darwin's wildest Dreams,,,Yet despite the Mountain of evidence mainstream refuses to look at it seriously..as though it is impossible so why bother looking.
The same thing happens every time New concepts are introduced..Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever..Same with Creationism..My better judgment says the jury is still out on this "origin of Man" issue.

Someone here needs to fess up. Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.

These clowns are creationists. They've just replaced God with aliens.


I dunno, i think there might be something to this alien stuff

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/440-what-is-the-likelihood-o f- alien-hybridization-at-some-early-point-in-our-evolution/

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/08/27/atheist-richard-dawkins-makes-so me -startling-comments-on-religion/

i recall a very good lecture about the origin of life on earth and how it could have been aliens but i can't remember where the link is
 
2013-02-20 01:59:16 PM
That's right, Subby. When some evidence arises that doesn't fit with the current scientific theory, we toss out the entire theory.

i651.photobucket.com

...except in the  real world, we modify the theory to explain the new evidence!

Science, FTW!
 
2013-02-20 02:06:59 PM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


The only "logical" answer:

i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-20 02:11:45 PM

I drunk what: DaintySavage: sylwedydd: All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.

Seeing a bacteria develop the ability to use citrate as a nutrient source (over 20k+ generations while living on a citrate rich but normal nutrient poor media) when they did not originally have that ability seems like a text book case of evolution to me. I would like to see creationists provide some support of their theory that comes even close to that.

i'm ok you're ok


Meh.  I do parodies better.  Check out this thread where I was "doing a (fairly spot-on) parody of IDW"(Robseace)

I received glowing reviews:

"Ok, that was a nice touch... "
"You're so fun. I like you. "
"He's crazier than a rape squirrel on bath salts."
"I so very much hope IDW visits this thread... I want to see an IDW vs vactech death-match!"
 
2013-02-20 02:14:01 PM

Lee451: How did symbiosis/symbiants evolve? Answer that, Darwinians!


"you either belief [sic] it is true or you do not." - Lee 4:51
 
2013-02-20 02:22:43 PM

I_C_Weener: gadian: I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.

Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?

Only if they were used for sexual purposes.  Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.


Time for your taily...

i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-20 02:24:41 PM

Ed Grubermann: God Is My Co-Pirate: Oooh and the comments are off to a roaring start:


For Example,,We have a dozen theory's about aliens manipulating primates DNA for a labor force
advancing humanity beyond Darwin's wildest Dreams,,,Yet despite the Mountain of evidence mainstream refuses to look at it seriously..as though it is impossible so why bother looking.
The same thing happens every time New concepts are introduced..Yet Darwin has no transitional evidence or solid foundation what so ever..Same with Creationism..My better judgment says the jury is still out on this "origin of Man" issue.

Someone here needs to fess up. Of course, if that's not trolling, I weep for the future.

These clowns are creationists. They've just replaced God with aliens.


24.media.tumblr.com
Problem?
 
2013-02-20 02:27:37 PM

safetycap: That's right, Subby. When some evidence arises that doesn't fit with the current scientific theory, we toss out the entire theory.

[i651.photobucket.com image 850x665]

...except in the  real world, we modify the theory to explain the new evidence!

Science, FTW!


...and then we place FAITH in the new theory...because we can't PROVE shiat, and until we can, the answer to creation is WE DON'T farkING KNOW.

I don't give a damn WHAT anyone believes, just don't try to tell me that it doesn't require some semblance of FAITH, because that's a farking bold faced lie.
 
2013-02-20 02:38:12 PM

spentmiles: The two legged creatures that were able to climb trees were able to escape the lava


um, you know what lava does to trees, right?
 
2013-02-20 02:38:32 PM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Adam and Eve had three sons named in the Bible:  Cain, Abel, and Seth.  Adam had other, unnamed children.

"After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters."  Genesis 5:4


Incest was not forbidden until the time of Moses.


/just noting what's in the literature; not a "Jesus freak"
 
2013-02-20 02:40:31 PM

k1j2b3: mechgreg: I_C_Weener: The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!

I would say the widsom teeth are where we put this nonsense to rest. I mean why the hell did I (and millions of other people) have these completely useless molars in the back of my mouth when my jaw wasn't even big enough to let them grow in probably. And why do some people not have them? Unless of course our ancestors from a long long time ago had bigger jaws, and needed those extra teeth because they didn't really have a whole lot of choices in what they ate (and needed extra teeth as back up since they didn't have dentists and losing molars could be a bigger problem). And then of course as we evolved our jaw got smaller but in some people the number of teeth hasn't evolved yet.

Um, because there were no dentists back in caveman days and teeth fell out or were damaged. Therefore, getting a new set of back molars to replace possibly rotten/damaged ones makes some sense.


That's probably also true. But it is also true that if you look fossils of our prehistoric ancestors had larger jaws than modern humans do. According to the prof in the one anthropology course I took in university jaw size evolved faster than tooth count which is why we are stuck with more teeth that can fit in our jaw (which is evidence of human evolution).
 
2013-02-20 02:50:03 PM

gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.


The myth of Adam's first wife is an attempt to explain the two different versions of humanity's creation found in Genesis 1 and 2.  In the first, man and woman were created simultaneously; in the  second, God created man first and then woman from man's rib.  The myth arose that Adam was dissatisfied with his first wife and sent her away.  God then made Eve.  Eve tickled Adam's ribs, apparently.

In medieval times, the first wife was identified with the demon, Lilith..
 
2013-02-20 02:56:02 PM

kitsuneymg: gadian:
Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.

Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?


Lilith never appeared in the Bible.  She's a bit of folklore.
 
2013-02-20 03:06:34 PM

Gandalf_is_dead: gadian:  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.

Hopefully because the immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus, it was Mary that had to be immaculately conceived in order for Jesus to be born free from original sin.


Patriarchal society; Jesus inherited his nature from his Father.

farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2013-02-20 03:09:01 PM

BarkingUnicorn: kitsuneymg: gadian:
Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.

Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?

Lilith never appeared in the Bible.  She's a bit of folklore.


www.tvgasm.com
 
2013-02-20 03:11:23 PM
I was always under the impression we began walking upright because our species became more ground oriented. Standing upright allowed us to move away from potential predators, and regardless of the lack of tall grass, would still allow early man to see predators from further away. Essentially, we left the defenses of the trees and slowly stood upright. Then again, I'm an idiot so don't listen to my ideas.
 
2013-02-20 03:16:06 PM

vactech: I want to see an IDW vs vactech death-match


1.   This thread is closed to new comments.

2.  IDW is no longer with us, but i'd be happy to debate you instead of him, but i must warn you i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.
 
2013-02-20 03:38:02 PM

sylwedydd: However for scientists to think that they have answers is, I believe, also suspect.


So, both sides are bad?
 
2013-02-20 03:39:38 PM
I think I miss the different models of the Bevetsbot v 2.666 compared to the current evolution of a creationist attention whore.
 
2013-02-20 03:45:05 PM
Not sure about how all of you got here.
But I'm just here to observe you all.
And the only thing I've learned in over 50 years of watching humans is you want to probe my ass now.
 
2013-02-20 03:51:18 PM
Parody at it's finest:

I drunk what: i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.


Yes, yes we've all seen the meme (I'mAnatheistDebateMe.jpg)

Weak sauce lad.

I drunk what: This thread is closed to new comments.


When God closes one door, another one opens.
 
2013-02-20 04:11:05 PM

vactech: Parody at it's finest:

I drunk what: i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.

Yes, yes we've all seen the meme (I'mAnatheistDebateMe.jpg)

Weak sauce lad.

I drunk what: This thread is closed to new comments.

When God closes one door, another one opens.


Oh, man... I always wanted to see vactech (in IDW parody mode) vs. real-IDW, but vs. the new anti-IDW? I don't know... It could either be the greatest thing ever to witness, or it could cause the complete destruction of the space-time continuum!

/Either way, I'm getting popcorn ready...
 
2013-02-20 04:15:50 PM

Fano: I think I miss the different models of the Bevetsbot v 2.666 compared to the current evolution of a creationist attention whore.


i know, don't you hate when people think these threads is about them?

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THIS GUY^^ SAYS LOLZ LOLZ LOLZ

/if it pleases you

thanks to people like you Fark has EVOLVED into a much better echo chamber, much more efficient

now if we can just get that annoying vactech censored-banned, we will be making some real progress

what is his deal?

please post more often so that we may agree with you :D, the IB has been getting kinda slow lately, those ad revenues aren't going to pay for themselves :D
 
2013-02-20 04:26:04 PM

RobSeace: vactech: Parody at it's finest:

I drunk what: i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.

Yes, yes we've all seen the meme (I'mAnatheistDebateMe.jpg)

Weak sauce lad.

I drunk what: This thread is closed to new comments.

When God closes one door, another one opens.

Oh, man... I always wanted to see vactech (in IDW parody mode) vs. real-IDW, but vs. the new anti-IDW? I don't know... It could either be the greatest thing ever to witness, or it could cause the complete destruction of the space-time continuum!

/Either way, I'm getting popcorn ready...


Alas. I decided to retire the IDW parody mode right around the time when IDW went to anti-IDW.  Sometimes I wonder if I had something to do with it.  There were a few threads where between me and IDW posting full insane derp that I wondered if that lead to the mods saying enough is enough, and then coming down hard on poor IDW.  There was even this one thread where Drew popped in, almost to say "Hey! I'm watching you two."

//I gotta' admit.  "Being IDW" is quite a rush of derptastic proportions though
 
2013-02-20 04:31:31 PM

stonicus: [dcmagnets.ru image 425x239]
Actually, tall and skinny radiates heat more effectively in warmer climates.


Another theory I've heard. Standing upright limits your direct exposure to the sun during the hottest parts of the day. It places your head, which is covered in blood vessels, in the cooler moving air and allows you to radiate more heat.

The blood vessels in your skull are bi-directional -- when cold blood flows to the brain along the spine and when warm it flows first across the scalp to radiate as much heat as possible so you don't cook your own brain. Brian surgeons take advantage of this as it can be manipulated by placing the head and neck in certain positions and reduce bleeding during certain surgeries. The brain produces a lot of heat. See: Brain Cooling

Fun, related fact: dark colors radiate heat faster than light colors. I learned this from an old HVAC guy. (Metallic colors are even better, but I've yet to meet a silver person.)

There are a lot of good reasons to walk on two feet besides: free hands, endurance running, seeing over tall grass. I don't know that we'll ever be able to say one reason caused the transition. It's probably as simple as the population that moved better on two feet was able to move out into the grasslands and ocean margins where there was very little competition and that environment shaped them in many ways at once including encouraging true bipeadalism.
 
2013-02-20 04:36:20 PM

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from? Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


Not a Jesus freak, but Adam and Even come from Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, God makes two people, at the same time, from dirt. I suppose it could be argued that people descended from intermarriage between A & E's kids and the dirt couple's. The problem with this theory is that none of the rest of Genesis 1 and 2 can be reconciled (e.g. the creation order is different).

Well that, and Genesis all has about as same credibility as the Epic of Gilgamesh (featuring the original version of the Great Flood/Noah's Ark story.)

Well okay that, and what sensible person would worship a God who blames babies for the offenses of mythological characters?
 
2013-02-20 04:43:22 PM

vactech: Sometimes I wonder if I had something to do with it.


Nope.

I drunk what: thanks to people like you Fark has EVOLVED


and there ain't no shortage of his kind, meh

ultimately you can thank the IB:

images.fineartamerica.comencrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

all their years of hard work and dedication finally paid off :D

i have finally seen the light, join us
 
2013-02-20 04:44:07 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.



If the mutation results in a dominant trait (which provides a reproductive advantage), then one individual is all that is needed.
 
2013-02-20 04:48:43 PM

vactech: RobSeace: vactech: Parody at it's finest:

I drunk what: i'm an atheist so my debate skills automatically jump +100 points.

Yes, yes we've all seen the meme (I'mAnatheistDebateMe.jpg)

Weak sauce lad.

I drunk what: This thread is closed to new comments.

When God closes one door, another one opens.

Oh, man... I always wanted to see vactech (in IDW parody mode) vs. real-IDW, but vs. the new anti-IDW? I don't know... It could either be the greatest thing ever to witness, or it could cause the complete destruction of the space-time continuum!

/Either way, I'm getting popcorn ready...

Alas. I decided to retire the IDW parody mode right around the time when IDW went to anti-IDW.  Sometimes I wonder if I had something to do with it.  There were a few threads where between me and IDW posting full insane derp that I wondered if that lead to the mods saying enough is enough, and then coming down hard on poor IDW.  There was even this one thread where Drew popped in, almost to say "Hey! I'm watching you two."

//I gotta' admit.  "Being IDW" is quite a rush of derptastic proportions though


Having studied IDW for a couple of years now.  I've come to the conclusion that his game is one that spirals out to trolltastic levels, but is centered on his one gambit, which is intended to drag, what he calls "IB'ers", kicking and screaming towards (what could be), a very straight forward discussion about the non-physicalhypothesis.  It's that simple. Basically, he feels with that hidden away in his back pocket, it gives him cause to show up to a site centered around beer and squirrels with huge ballsacks, and start insulting everyone.  If he were really a "straight shooter", he'd just post on a phillosphy blog comment section.

But like I said, I'm a big fan.
 
2013-02-20 05:53:25 PM
Hagenhatesyouall:
I don't give a damn WHAT anyone believes, just don't try to tell me that it doesn't require some semblance of FAITH, because that's a farking bold faced lie.

Ocam's Razor
"We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible."
"It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer"
"A plurality is not to be posited without necessity"

Tell me, do you see the word 'faith' in there anywhere?
 
2013-02-20 06:10:51 PM
It didn't look like anyone pointed this out, so here goes.

Efficiency hunting. Useful pretty much anywhere. Critters can go faster, but an in-shape human can go longer. Eventually the critter tires out and the human catches up and clobbers it over the head or pokes it with a stick.

Upright walking is what gives us the advantage.
 
2013-02-20 07:50:54 PM

Hagenhatesyouall: ...and then we place FAITH in the new theory...because we can't PROVE shiat, and until we can, the answer to creation is WE DON'T farkING KNOW.
I don't give a damn WHAT anyone believes, just don't try to tell me that it doesn't require some semblance of FAITH, because that's a farking bold faced lie.


Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities. Nothing is ultimately knowable. That doesn't mean things can't be found out and understood.

Faith is not required. What we do is ACCEPT the statistical probability of our current understanding of our observations of the faculties and properties of the Universe given the available evidence.

That's all we can do.
 
2013-02-20 07:54:28 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Spandex disproves Creationism

God did not create Spandex, chemists Sandquist and Shivers did at Dupont. They should be memorialized for one of Mankind's greatest evolutionary leaps.


Or burnt at the stake.

i126.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-20 08:10:44 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: talulahgosh: mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.

the scientific method is a test of a hypothesis.   it has no basis in faith.  faith involves what you cannot prove, only what you believe without proof.

Scientific method requires faith that the universe is causal at all times.


I would also go so far as to point out that it requires faith that the current interpretations are correct. For example, look at the beliefs held just a score of years ago. Faith isn't a bad thing.
 
2013-02-20 08:20:21 PM

UnspokenVoice: I would also go so far as to point out that it requires faith that the current interpretations are correct. For example, look at the beliefs held just a score of years ago. Faith isn't a bad thing.


Faith is not the right word. It's more like the current interpretations are "placeholders" until better interpretations come along.
 
Displayed 50 of 238 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report