mind blown at people who seriously do not believe in evolution. I cant believe.....

[Ralph Wiggum]

3 is simply not true. Tons of research has been done on the evolution of the eye and there is plenty of evidence to support the general stages of development over time. Most researchers believed that the eye evolved in more than one way, which explains why there are very different biochemistries of how the eye works among different organisms.

inb4 bible thumpers say "ok continue to be close-minded by believing whatever people write about in peer-review scientific journals."

[MrMichael1392]

A liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.

”How old is this rock, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian”

”Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving job creators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!

The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

[MancChap]

Reductio ad absurdum

Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion.

Amen to that. These are the absurdities of the arguments we have to deal with.

[brbacquiring]

lol, science brand fan boys. I hate them more than religious fanatics.

none of you know anything, y'all just take sides with whatever semi-fictional authority seems the most appealing and socially credible. Science ****s today are the same type of people who'd have been sucking hard on church cawk 24/7 back when that was the dominant force.

just lamo

[EatPlums]

Not sure if srs... The Big Bang Theory explains the universe... We don't live in the Universe.... LOLOL How do you think all the elements came to this planet and through evolution created us to the present day??? Meteors and Comets which imploded into our planet billions of years ago started the process of evolution bud... Meteors and Comets hold all the elements need for life. Water being the most important!!! Amazes me that this generation with all the access on the internet does not know simple things like this. We can prove up to a millisecond before the big bang theory with telecsopes. This is common knowledge??? I am baffled at the lack of intelligence....

u fawkin wat m8

The BBT only explains how the universe came into being, not how life came into being. The Universe could be around for 1 trillion years but that doesn't meant life will arise.

And the whole 'organic soup' theory for the origin of life is highly unlikely.

It is far more likely that life originated in hydrothermal vents in the deep sea.

[MancChap]

lol, science brand fan boys. I hate them more than religious fanatics.

none of you know anything, y'all just take sides with whatever semi-fictional authority seems the most appealing and socially credible. Science ****s today are the same type of people who'd have been sucking hard on church cawk 24/7 back when that was the dominant force.

just lamo

More like they were the people fighting against the church and trying to spread important knew knowledge to the world. Religion has held back science for hundreds of years.

Science is a method not a belief. Just like atheism is lack of belief.

[BrocepCurls]

lol, science brand fan boys. I hate them more than religious fanatics.

none of you know anything, y'all just take sides with whatever semi-fictional authority seems the most appealing and socially credible. Science ****s today are the same type of people who'd have been sucking hard on church cawk 24/7 back when that was the dominant force.

just lamo

As some of us have explained, they aren't the same. Trusting science because you have researched the wealth of evidence behind a theory, and believing in a book written by arab donkey ****ers from 2000 years ago, are in no way shape or form the same thing.

[blue_aviators]

Reductio ad absurdum

Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion.

[youtube]s6AdEDm2mLQ[youtube]

1. Stop saying reductium ad absurdum, nobody here speaks latin, and neither do you. It's called proof by contradiction. I also doubt you know how to prove things properly with this, unless you have a degree in math.

2. Stopped watching the video when the guy said "there was a time when people believed that everything popped into existence" because thats exactley what cosmologists said in 1970. They called it, "the big bang"

[WalterKohn]

lol, science brand fan boys. I hate them more than religious fanatics.

none of you know anything, y'all just take sides with whatever semi-fictional authority seems the most appealing and socially credible. Science ****s today are the same type of people who'd have been sucking hard on church cawk 24/7 back when that was the dominant force.

just lamo

LOL ... first off you have no avi ... Second off Science is proven with evidence.. To quote you on "sucking hard on church cawk 24/7" would mean to believe in things that are not proven... Just saying. Anyone fanatic about science is generally intelligent because they have logic... lol at people who think that logic and evidence is semi-fictional or socially credible..

[Volta55]

[WalterKohn]

u fawkin wat m8

The BBT only explains how the universe came into being, not how life came into being. The Universe could be around for 1 trillion years but that doesn't meant life will arise.

And the whole 'organic soup' theory for the origin of life is highly unlikely.

It is far more likely that life originated in hydrothermal vents in the deep sea.

LOL at no avi ....

How would life begin without all the elements needed to support life??? Water was not always on Earth... Recently there is evidence supporting that Water also known as H20 was brought here by metors and comets... Those meteors and comets would not have been on a certain trajectory path without the initial big bang.. Hence without the big bang we would not be here... I cant believe you do not know this??? Judging by your use of "m8" I am taking that you are not from the US so it would explain a lot.. just didn't realize the rest of the world is so naïve...

[BetaAsPhuck]

1. Stop saying reductium ad absurdum, nobody here speaks latin, and neither do you. It's called proof by contradiction. I also doubt you know how to prove things properly with this, unless you have a degree in math.

No, reductio ad aburdum is formally recognized (within academic philosophy) as method of rational argumentation.

2. Stopped watching the video when the guy said "there was a time when people believed that everything popped into existence" because thats exactley what cosmologists said in 1970. They called it, "the big bang"

That character is parodying Christians who believe that philosophical naturalism and the big bang theory are absurd concepts. It's ironic that you stopped watching it because of that statement.

[blue_aviators]

No, reductio ad aburdum is formally recognized (within academic philosophy) as method of rational argumentation.

That character is parodying Christians who believe that philosophical naturalism and the big bang theory are absurd concepts. It's ironic that you stopped watching it because of that statement.

types of answers id expect from a guy taking philosophy 101 at community college

pls come back when you have some sort of training in boolean logic.

[Less Than 3]

>saw thread
>6 pages
>read thread
>mind still blown at level of ignorance

[BetaAsPhuck]

types of answers id expect from a guy taking philosophy 101 at community college

pls come back when you have some sort of training in boolean logic.

Ask a philosophy professor if they are aware of what reductio ad absurdum is. Simply because you're not aware of something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Here's another latin phrase for you; Ad hominem.

[chase02]

According to most models of evolution, random mutations beneficial to survival will be incorporated into the gene pool. However, there are too many things going on that do NOT promote survival but are beneficial to support evolution alone as how we (humans and animal) got to where we are now.

Put another way:

1. Humans have the ability to manipulate tools and therefore use things like spears and knives to hunt; hunting is necessary to survival. So the evolution of various things associated with manipulation of tools, such as fingers (especially the thumb), are evidence that a species will retain (through natural selection) those things that promote survival.

2. However, there are many characteristics we possess that might be beneficial which do not promote survival and therefore are not part of the natural selection process. Such as fingernails, which are a useful tool, does not promote survival.

3. Natural selection of random mutations which promote survival does not explain, for example, the evolution of the eye. The human eye is far too complex to have evolved over time. A partial evolution of the eye is not conceivable. How would that happen? An organism, whether single-cell to walking up-right is wandering around and finally says to itself, "Sure is dark in here," and starts to evolve an eye? No model of evolution supports how the eye came into being. This is just one example.

Conclusion: Why is this important? Beneficial characteristics of a species that are unrelated to survival might be inferred to support an intelligent design as opposed to evolution through the process of natural selection. In no way does this conclusion imply that god, God, aliens, etc are the explanation for how we got here. I merely posit that the evidence does cast a shadow of doubt on the models of evolution and provides intelligent design as a worthy consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

[sourcecode123]

It really is sad how many people especially in the US don't "believe" and 99% of the time its simply ignorance of the irrefutable evidence for evolution

[caublet]

Can't believe it till I see it with my own eyes.

Have you ever seen a dog? Then you have seen it.

80-90% of dogs have "magically appeared" on Earth since the Victorian era. That's wild...I wonder if its because humans have sped up evolution by breeding for specific traits?

[blue_aviators]

Ask a philosophy professor if they are aware of what reductio ad absurdum is. Simply because you're not aware of something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Here's another latin phrase for you; Ad hominem.

I have a degree in math. More than half of my college career was dealing with reductio ad absurdum. Proving theorems with proof by contradiction is one of the quickest and most effective ways. It's how you prove most of point-set topology, hyperbolic geometry, and it's also how you prove that the square root of 2 is irrational. So based on my own experience, and training, I will abstain from asking a philosophy professor what that is since i've spent years of my life practicing it.

Parodies are not proof by contradiction, which is why they're called parodies. They're just humorous ways to insult something.

[Huke]

Not sure if srs... The Big Bang Theory explains the universe... We don't live in the Universe.... LOLOL How do you think all the elements came to this planet and through evolution created us to the present day??? Meteors and Comets which imploded into our planet billions of years ago started the process of evolution bud... Meteors and Comets hold all the elements need for life. Water being the most important!!! Amazes me that this generation with all the access on the internet does not know simple things like this. We can prove up to a millisecond before the big bang theory with telecsopes. This is common knowledge??? I am baffled at the lack of intelligence....

WTF am I reading?

The big bang and evolution fall under completely different disciplines and seek to answer completely different questions.

Big bang theory = cosmology, origins of the universe
Evolution = biology, origins of species

Planets aren't formed by comets and meteors. They're formed in collapsing nebulae.

Water isn't an element. It is used by cells in an organism, but is not PART of the cell (and hence the organism) itself.

The big bang isn't proven by telescope.

[BetaAsPhuck]

Parodies are not proof by contradiction, which is why they're called parodies. They're just humorous ways to insult something.

Seeing as you didn't watch the full video you have no idea if it's based on reductio ad absurdum or an appeal to ridicule (which is what you are implying).

[YoureAWizard]

i like how all the guys against evolution dont give there opinion on how humans came to be. let me guess god magically *poofed* us onto earth

[Ikeman83]

Evolution isn't something you believe in. It's something you recognize based on the piles of empirical evidence. I don't believe that I'm 6'2, it's been measured. I don't believe that I live in Chesapeake, VA, I know it as a result of being able to read a map.

[ManchesterBrah]

You quote this in your sig...

"Think you of the fact that a deaf person cannot hear. Then, what deafness may we not all possess? What senses do we lack that we cannot see and cannot hear another world all around us? What is there around us that we cannot know?"

Then you produce a thread saying your mind is blown because people don't agree with you and evolutionary 'theory'. Good job OP

[WalterKohn]

WTF am I reading?

The big bang and evolution fall under completely different disciplines and seek to answer completely different questions.

Big bang theory = cosmology, origins of the universe
Evolution = biology, origins of species

Planets aren't formed by comets and meteors. They're formed in collapsing nebulae.

Water isn't an element. It is used by cells in an organism, but is not PART of the cell (and hence the organism) itself.

The big bang isn't proven by telescope.

LOL at no AVI....

Not sure if your srs as well.. The op was talking about evolution... Then another guy who I responded to said something about The Big Bang Theory which was false so I responded.. I know water is not an element but H20= water and hydrogen and oxygen area elements correct??? I never said meteors or comets made planets I said they brought the necessary elements needed for life. As far as we know where there is water there is life. I didn't say telescopes could see the exact second the big bang happened either, I said they can see up to and almost when it happened. Stop generalizing and get an avi.

[BetaAsPhuck]

LOL at no AVI....

Not sure if your srs as well.. The op was talking about evolution... Then another guy who I responded to said something about The Big Bang Theory which was false so I responded.. I know water is not an element but H20= water and hydrogen and oxygen area elements correct??? I never said meteors or comets made planets I said they brought the necessary elements needed for life. As far as we know where there is water there is life. I didn't say telescopes could see the exact second the big bang happened either, I said they can see up to and almost when it happened. Stop generalizing and get an avi.

Pro tip from debating feminists and religious folk a lot online...

Never be afraid to admit you are wrong/mistaken. They will often never want to admit in the slightest that they may be mistaken, and that is when their downfall as they descend into mental gymnastics. (Which on-the-fence lurkers will take note of.) However a non-feminist or atheist looks just as absurd IME if they have too much ego invested.

Like the dude pointed out you seemed to be mixing the big bang theory, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.

[WalterKohn]

Pro tip from debating feminists and religious folk a lot online...

Never be afraid to admit you are wrong/mistaken. They will often never want to admit in the slightest that they may be mistaken, and that is when their downfall as they descend into mental gymnastics. (Which on-the-fence lurkers will take note of.) However a non-feminist or atheist looks just as absurd IME if they have too much ego invested.

Like the dude pointed out you seemed to be mixing the big bang theory, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.

Again I appreciate keeping me on my toes, if I was wrong I'd be the first to admit it. I was definitely mixing the 2 but I didn't bring up the big bang theory only responded to what that dude said. It was deliberate but did go nicely I might add with everything everyone is saying about evolution, church, the big bang and science. I wasn't coming at you I know that you understand science by your first response to me.

[brbacquiring]

As some of us have explained, they aren't the same. Trusting science because you have researched the wealth of evidence behind a theory

Which applies to no one in this thread, lamo. brb scanning wikipedia, we science now.

and believing in a book written by arab donkey ****ers from 2000 years ago, are in no way shape or form the same thing.

There's a lot of chit to learn from ancient religious texts, m8. A lot of good chit to learn. Religion vs. science is a totally false dichotomy, imo, and they occupy completely different spaces. What I'm saying is that the ignorant fervour with which today's peasants uphold the "science" brand name, despite having zero understanding of or connection to it, is today's equivalent of the moronic masses of the past accepting whatever vague belief system was imposed upon them. Life is scary and we don't understand it, so we hope like **** that some people way smarter or better than us do have a sense of understanding (they don't, most likely) and rally behind that idea to feel less lost.

"Religion" and "science" are very different things, so different that they're not even at odds with one another. But spastics who think they're fighting the good fight by hopefully supporting chit like that are very much the same sort of people. Everyone likes a good team vs. team battle, though. Politics, sport, whatever.

LOL ... first off you have no avi ... Second off Science is proven with evidence..

To quote you on "sucking hard on church cawk 24/7" would mean to believe in things that are not proven... Just saying. Anyone fanatic about science is generally intelligent because they have logic... lol at people who think that logic and evidence is semi-fictional or socially credible..[/QUOTE]

sheeple gonna sheeple, m8. They don't know the first phucking thing about "science" (lamo at such a horrendously broad term) or any of this "evidence" chit or what that even means, they just suck whatever cawk is put in front of their hungry mouths. People need something to fill a void in their heads, some authority to tell them, "You can't understand this stuff, but srsly guise this really explains things and this makes sense. Everything is OK." so they don't have to do any terrifying spiritual/philosophical investigation of their own. Threads like this are a horrendously unscientific mess of bullchit with people getting upset on behalf of their great spiritual leaders (anonymous composite "scientists", patched together by journalists) who would never even stoop to this level, and wouldn't understand what was going on if they ever read it. Massive cluster **** with a load of related theories which are each massive and 10,000x beyond the scope of any individual researcher's career focus, all being chucked around in a desperate orgy of ****gism. None of this kind of debate is scientific in the slightest, it's more political in nature.

cawk-sucking masses, always need a cawk in their mouths. Feels good (no homo).


> 1st class degree in a science crew
> worked in lab jobs crew
> unfriend anyone who posts IFLS crap on FB crew

[BetaAsPhuck]

I wasn't coming at you I know that you understand science by your first response to me.

Racist.

We all look alike huh?

[blue_aviators]

Seeing as you didn't watch the full video you have no idea if it's based on reductio ad absurdum or an appeal to ridicule (which is what you are implying).

I don't have to watch the full video, it's a parody. Once again, something your philosophy 101, or a quick wikipedia search, won't teach you.