BILL BILL BILL BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY. . My SEULEMENT IS EVERY SINGLE REAL SCIENTIFIC iai" ='' PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE LAST t' -til? ast "' E' P 5" ENE HUNDRED i think its safe to say that bill won Debate WHILE ham dude was Humiliated and stripped
x
Click to expand

BILL BILL BILL BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY

My SEULEMENT IS
EVERY SINGLE REAL SCIENTIFIC
iai" ='' PAPER PUBLISHED IN THE LAST
t' -til? ast "' E' P 5" ENE HUNDRED FIFTY YEARS.
Ila
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1220
Views: 49232
Favorited: 100
Submitted: 02/10/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to angrybarts submit to reddit

Comments(417):

[ 417 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#21 - ilikemanythings (02/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#229 to #21 - syswolf (02/11/2014) [-]
This is beautiful! I want to marry it and be the mother of my children!
User avatar #285 to #21 - mizzdepp (02/11/2014) [-]
This is the first gif that actually made me cry with laughter
thank you !
#169 to #21 - thepink (02/10/2014) [-]
I feel like you deserve to know just how happy that gif makes me.   
   
   
Go you
I feel like you deserve to know just how happy that gif makes me.


Go you
#17 - sodapops (02/10/2014) [-]
The thing that I find really weird in all this is how the bible thumpers in (especially) USA have turned this into a religion VS science war. Even the arch-conservative VATICAN has accepted evolution. FOR 60 ******* YEARS! Yeah, yeah, I know. Not in a "we were wrong" way, but at least in a "We have no problem with that" way.
User avatar #130 to #17 - ianchrist (02/10/2014) [-]
thats because they are different religions. The Vatican is catholic. This Ham idiot is some other form of Christianity
User avatar #137 to #17 - vulper (02/10/2014) [-]
There are many branches of Christianity, some are really lax, other say you go to Hell for getting a tattoo or piercing. As a Christian I find it sad myself but it's not really worth the time trying to change it.
#349 - afroadam (02/11/2014) [-]
If God isn't real, then how come peecha chakka no wookie boonowa tweepi solo?
Ho ho ho ho hooooooo.
Christians: 0
Atheists: 0
Solo: 0
Jabba: 1
User avatar #376 to #349 - brrigg (02/11/2014) [-]
i didn't know that i needed this, but i did.
User avatar #127 to #126 - perdition (02/10/2014) [-]
the Bible says so
#166 to #126 - yamadashinichi (02/10/2014) [-]
Who says I can't?
User avatar #149 to #126 - kinginyellow (02/10/2014) [-]
Cloaca master race
+132
#44 - mytwocents has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #52 to #44 - Blargosnarf (02/10/2014) [-]
I swear that guy gets more orange each time the gif loops.
User avatar #77 to #52 - houseofscarlet (02/10/2014) [-]
Oompa Loompa Doopa-dee Doo...
#55 to #52 - Rascal (02/10/2014) [-]
i like how your idiotic comment has more thumbs than his thoughtfull reply.
+10
#84 to #55 - mytwocents has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #71 to #55 - garaichu (02/10/2014) [-]
It IS FUNNYjunk, not Thoughtfuljunk.
#168 to #71 - Rascal (02/10/2014) [-]
>implying **** here is funny
User avatar #226 to #55 - Blargosnarf (02/11/2014) [-]
Don't worry, the irony is not lost for me.
User avatar #308 to #52 - spartansquirrel (02/11/2014) [-]
I find he only gets so orange then just stops at that level. But why is he orange in the first place?
#280 - kiratheunholy ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
To all the 			**********		 in the comments below   
   
This content has nothing to do with Atheism vs Christianity, it's making fun of how badly Ken Ham lost a debate against Bill Nye.
To all the ********** in the comments below

This content has nothing to do with Atheism vs Christianity, it's making fun of how badly Ken Ham lost a debate against Bill Nye.
User avatar #326 to #280 - markthemarksman (02/11/2014) [-]
See? Now this comment is helpful. Without having watched the debate, one wouldn't know exactly what it was mocking.
#98 - matrixone (02/10/2014) [-]
Bill

You weren't there

ok

bill

ples
#377 to #98 - hybridxproject (02/11/2014) [-]
mfw that pretty accurately sums up his entire arguement
mfw that pretty accurately sums up his entire arguement
#286 - limned (02/11/2014) [-]
appropriate?
appropriate?
User avatar #322 - freemanareso (02/11/2014) [-]
Neither can prove or disprove god exists, so the debate is moot.
User avatar #367 to #322 - pawnman (02/11/2014) [-]
i believe that in my past life i was cybernetic alien that was forced to be a soldier in an ongoing war in the Nebootoot galaxy. Nothing can prove or disprove this.
User avatar #368 to #322 - pawnman (02/11/2014) [-]
I also agree
User avatar #379 to #322 - brrigg (02/11/2014) [-]
they're not debating if god exists or not, they're debating weather or not creationism is viably teachable in the field of science. watch the debate.
User avatar #387 to #322 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
This isn't about the existence of god, this is about whether Ken Ham's creation model is scientific, it's not.
#393 to #322 - tomtomvdp (02/11/2014) [-]
I´m not anti religion , and I don´t care about what people do with their own life. But that´s as logical as saying. Neither can prove or disprove that I have x-ray vision , the ability to fly, and super strength.
User avatar #412 to #393 - freemanareso (02/11/2014) [-]
You may have them in another dimension, maybe dreaming is another dimension, maybe life as we know it is just all of us hooked up to a computer simulator that's highly advanced. I don't see how my statement is illogical. We may be able to prove or disprove it someday, but now? No
User avatar #329 to #322 - toncheky ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
True, but that logic is kind of silly.
What if I told you that there is a unicorn behind you anytime you're alone, but every time you turn around he disappears and he doesn't appear on camera or mirrors etc.?
You can't prove that it doesn't, I just claim that.
User avatar #333 to #329 - freemanareso (02/11/2014) [-]
Then I would have to trust that what you're telling is the truth, but you could also be lying, at this point it would basically be up to me having faith which is basically what people have when it concerns religion, but on the subject of knowing whether it's real or not, at this time, is impossible.

Hope that makes sense.
User avatar #330 to #329 - toncheky ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Works for absolutely anything, really.
User avatar #335 to #322 - joekerr ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
This is the most agnostic post I've ever seen True that, I agree with you ... so does Kant. I am pretty sure Nye wouldn't say he can do it, but Ham would say "it is written in this book" ...
#339 to #322 - taxideataxus (02/11/2014) [-]
I believe in Evolution. Except legendaries.
User avatar #107 - friendlyanonymous (02/10/2014) [-]
I never understood why religious people don't get amazed by stuff too. I don't mean to be all "Ohwow the sun my God isn't real now."

I mean. Sometimes it'd be cool to just hear someone say "Wow. God put a lot of effort into making all of these small unique parts of the universe. He must be a pretty swell guy!"
User avatar #276 to #107 - monsieurhonkhonk (02/11/2014) [-]
...what makes you think they don't?
Because I mostly hear from Christians about how beautiful everything in creation is. It's mostly about things on earth, yeah, but that's because they've seen it with their own eyes.
#135 to #107 - vytros ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
They do.

Just in Europe.

Like seriously, this ******* conservative Christianism is mostly only a problem in the US. Which is ******* laughable.
User avatar #136 to #135 - friendlyanonymous (02/10/2014) [-]
Like. I had a science teacher that basically said "Look. I'm going to have faith in my God until I'm proven otherwise. It's how I feel. You can believe whatever you want."
That dude then showed us how different chemicals burn different colors. No idea why.
#145 to #136 - vytros ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
It's because he probably doesn't believe in how the Bible portrays a god?

That's how I believe it anyway. A god, somewhere, somewhy, somehow made the universe(s), and to keep it effective and in motion, he made it with the laws of time and physics, and everything in-between.

There are many different ways a man can believe, that's why I try not to over-think it. I don't think that if there's a God or divine power, he/she/it would want us to actively wage wars over his name or worship his "feet". Just say thanks sometimes maybe?

Eh, whatever, humanity doesn't like opinions that much.
#187 to #145 - fugex (02/10/2014) [-]
pretty much acknowledging that god gave us the gift of life for a reason and that we should not waste it kissing up to his ass in the hopes we will make it into the promised land of sunshine and fluffy clouds of eternal boredom.

reasons like discovering yourself, the universe, all of creation and you know doing all the stuff that makes life worth living for yourself and others.
User avatar #147 to #145 - friendlyanonymous (02/10/2014) [-]
I never really got to ask him. I wanted to, but it's kind of a big no for a teacher to talk to a student about religion. I mean, once I had a history teacher skip an entire section just because a muslim and christian kid got into a fight about who was better; Jesus vs. Mohamed.
#189 to #147 - fugex (02/10/2014) [-]
i think in a fight mohamed would win by a long shot.
#244 to #189 - draaaaiven (02/11/2014) [-]
But that number is imaginary.
#158 to #147 - vytros ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
Well damn, that sucks. We still can talk about this stuff sometimes, of course it's the last years of high school so we know everyone, but eh, yeah.

Well, anyways, it's been good mate. See ya later.
User avatar #151 to #147 - kinginyellow (02/10/2014) [-]
A friend in North Battleford came to school to watch his teacher being removed for trying to teach the students the Holocaust wasn't real.
User avatar #155 to #151 - friendlyanonymous (02/10/2014) [-]
My teachers so far have been great with this whole free thinking thing. I even joked about the Holocaust not happening and my history teacher just said "You're free to believe whatever you'd like, but I'd prefer it if you read up on history before being so adamant about something as controversial as the Holocaust."
User avatar #156 to #155 - kinginyellow (02/10/2014) [-]
Ya one of my history teachers actually got the board of ed pissed off because he was showing us the bias behind the movies on the Riel rebellion.
#75 - lastkingofx (02/10/2014) [-]
We get it.
#347 to #75 - Rascal (02/11/2014) [-]
Why doesn't anyone post **** like this when someone posts the same [tippin intensifies] picture?

**** , that thing even gets top rated comment when it has nothing to do with atheism, and even slightly frustrates religious people
User avatar #109 to #75 - hasinvadedyou (02/10/2014) [-]
why did someone disassemble that laser disc?
#99 to #75 - angrybarts (02/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #14 - cumbersome (02/10/2014) [-]
Can we move on now?
User avatar #27 to #14 - lasmamoe (02/10/2014) [-]
Apparently not..
#378 to #14 - hybridxproject (02/11/2014) [-]
no no no
no no no
#249 - skinnypanda (02/11/2014) [-]
What I don't understand is and I know there are people out there who agree with me.

Why can't there be science and God at the same time?

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Couldn't God have created the big bang? Couldn't God have created the universe in a way that evolution is perfectly feasible?

Or do we have to take scriptures possibly written analogically 5000 years ago so literally?
#256 to #249 - Rascal (02/11/2014) [-]
This guy gets it.
#342 to #249 - lolibear (02/11/2014) [-]
You are talking about theism in general. There is nothing wrong with theism, and really no proof can go either way. Creationism, the subject of the debate specifically states that god "created" the earth less than a couple of millennia ago.
#260 to #249 - Rascal (02/11/2014) [-]
who created god?
User avatar #380 to #260 - obsidicus (02/11/2014) [-]
you're assuming that time existed before God, which I don't believe is true. If God created time, then He would exist before time began. While the Bible doesn't explicitly say God created time but it does describe Him as timeless, everlasting, and beyond the reaches of time which would make sense if He created time, like a potter creates a pot.
User avatar #305 to #260 - newsuperyoshi (02/11/2014) [-]
Where did the Point of Light of Compression of the Universe (Point of Light from the Big Bang Theory) originate?
User avatar #302 to #260 - godofcorndog (02/11/2014) [-]
We did. Religion is a social construct. Just like government. It exists because we say so, and it stops existing the moment we say so.
#307 to #249 - daemascus (02/11/2014) [-]
I don't understand how people can change their religious views to adapt around new scientific evidence. Like things in the bible are blatantly wrong and have been proven wrong but people say that it was still god, just that he used these facts(like tectonic plates) as tools. Honestly Christianity is not what it was 2000 years ago, people just keep changing beliefs to adapt to new social structures and new discoveries. Saying science and religion can go hand in hand is idiotic when the two directly contradict each other.
I don't understand how people can change their religious views to adapt around new scientific evidence. Like things in the bible are blatantly wrong and have been proven wrong but people say that it was still god, just that he used these facts(like tectonic plates) as tools. Honestly Christianity is not what it was 2000 years ago, people just keep changing beliefs to adapt to new social structures and new discoveries. Saying science and religion can go hand in hand is idiotic when the two directly contradict each other.
User avatar #323 to #307 - Nameloc (02/11/2014) [-]
Religion isn't what it was 2,000 years ago.

Then, sacrificing was common practice among many religions.
Now, it's safe to say that sacrificing is more scarce than it was then.

Times change, as do people and their opinions and beliefs.
And actually, time is the only thing that can change someone's opinions.
Namely, a person's opinions are rock solid. For instance:

If I were to grow to like this girl, Stacy, in my class, then that would be my biased viewpoint of her as a potential mate.
Now, if my friend were to try and convince me that Stacy isn't right for me and I should stray away from her, of course I wouldn't want to recognize this, and nor would I instantly change my mind on her.

Now, replace Stacy with an opinion/ belief on how everything came to be, replace the 'potential mate' aspect with how great their belief is, and replace me with any general person. That is how people are with religious viewpoints, and how they would react to someone trying to immediately alter their viewpoint.

The point is that having a simple conversation with someone and saying that their belief is completely invalidated is redundant because you're going nowhere. Their belief started before you could play a role in it's direction, and ultimately you just have to leave the person to change their opinions as they will.

So if people are changing their beliefs and altering it at will, then you can't really do anything. The best you can do is try to understand where they are coming from and why.
User avatar #382 to #307 - obsidicus (02/11/2014) [-]
I understand what you are thinking, how can people change their opinions on religious matters when the Bible clearly says the opposite happened.

When I believed that way, I missed one crucial part of that. The Bible doesn't clearly say. There are so many language differences, historical differences, cultural differences, and interpretation differences. Christians all have the same Bible and yet there are hundreds of denominations and hundreds of different versions of the same Bible that say completely different things. The original King James version has unicorns in it.
#413 to #382 - daemascus (02/11/2014) [-]
I might become a christian if it confirms the existence of unicorns
I might become a christian if it confirms the existence of unicorns
User avatar #255 to #249 - elcreepo (02/11/2014) [-]
I agree.

I honestly think that the two fields need to stop attacking each other. One is personal and another is trying to find answers, both solve a need in human nature to understand/be comforted by something.

Yet both can't stop ******* screaming at each other long enough to realize that neither side has any business with the other, except in terms of compromise.
User avatar #304 to #249 - newsuperyoshi (02/11/2014) [-]
That's actually how I've always though. 'Let there be light', we can assume that something on the level of the Big Bang would cause a lot of light, given God created the Earth, God would be responsible for Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, also, it covers for Modern Cell Theory's flaw with contradicting any possible Absolute Genesis of Life (would have to be abiotic).
User avatar #253 to #249 - lolfire (02/11/2014) [-]
Because we cannot call what we don't know, god.

If science just called what it couldn't figure out, god, then we would still be in the dark ages.
#301 to #253 - vwgreen (02/11/2014) [-]
we don't call what we don't know God. We believe there is a God and a sub-section of us believe he came down and chilled with us for a bit saying "it's ok. you do you." This sucks that this debate even happened, cause now all the religion bashers feel high and mighty, when the truth is they don't even understand science. I am a man of science too, but I don't just say "it's God's purpose" because the same type people who don't understand science also exist on the religious side. There exist many people who blindly follow religion. IT'S BAD. But there are many people who blindly follow science too. I'm not saying they're wrong, but science DOES change it's theories. We didn't always understands magnets and gravity and even today we're finding new information about quantum mechanics.

The only REAL difference between science and religion is science is wonderful and lets itself grow into a better being. If you try to do that with religion you become "evil."

Just sharing my thoughts and 2-cents. Not trying to cause a ********* . Trying to bring understanding.
User avatar #259 to #253 - bladebites (02/11/2014) [-]
Thank you. Just... yes. Well said.
#312 to #253 - Nameloc (02/11/2014) [-]
But in saying that, it implies too much on all religious types.

I can understand your point of view, but I really think it's basing off of a vast amount of vague stereotypes too much.
It really depends on the person, in this case.

Each person varies vastly, as do sub-religions.
And that's where things start to get complicated on your standpoint; With each sub-religion, there's more and more variation on beliefs.
For instance, Catholicism is a form of Christianity, as is Protestantism, however both are completely different.
This and the fact that each church also varies differently from the next; So one Protestant church in one city could have varied beliefs than a Protestant church in the next.
Then, if you want to simplify whole-religions into basic views/ titles, you have:
Deism
Theism
Monotheism
etc.

Therefore, your point is somewhat invalidated since it doesn't necessarily confine a specific religion/ sub-religion/ religious stereotype. I suppose in this case, having some experience first hand with people of the like -- that are ready to say everything is because of God and shrug it off -- would greatly benefit and aid your point, especially if you are able to have a conversation with them and understand their exact belief and why they believe it. Never have to be in a debate; In fact, talking about religion can be pretty easy with someone as long as you both go over what you believe in and why, and just leave it there. Don't try and sway the other person, just try to figure out where they're coming from so you can have a better understanding on their situation.
Personally, I would say that I am Christian, yet that doesn't mean I can't thrive to find a scientific explanation for everything in life.
Which would be the point of my reply; Because each person is different, your comment is too vast and doesn't really hit on every target, so to speak.
User avatar #290 to #249 - bleachedpheather (02/11/2014) [-]
the thing of it is, there is no proof of god. but at the same time there is no proof against god. but most scientist will go off of what they know, what they have proved. but almost all scientist agree, if there ever was proof, if anyone ever found real proof, then they would all admit they were wrong about not believing.
User avatar #254 to #249 - icefried (02/11/2014) [-]
Whether or not there is a God was not the point of the debate, it was to determin the viability of creationism in a modern world.
#65 - improbable (02/10/2014) [-]
**improbable rolled a random image posted in comment #9 at people that annoy you ** scientific discoveries versus morals.
#139 to #65 - ecalycptus ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
You rolled my image!
User avatar #140 - ianchrist (02/10/2014) [-]
The creation guy did have one good point.
In schools we are told that our scientific theories are a fact. Evolution is taught the way that Darwin wrote it--we associate him with natural selection. We base things on what he said. But he was wrong about a couple of things, and those things have been disproven over time. In order to keep disproving things and bettering our understanding of the universe we have to keep disproving preconceived ideas. Bill Nye said it a few times "If you disprove Newton, congratulations you can change the world". The problem is that, in our American education system, we AREN'T taught this. We are told things are FACTS. We are destroying the drive to find new things.

So no, the creationist model should not be taught in school, but things like evolution should have a huge disclaimer. Never in recorded human history has there been a record of an animal changing into another, never has it been proven how old the world is--but we accept these things as scientific fact.

In the end, Ham's only good point was that, yes, it does take a large amount of faith to believe in evolution. But he's still a moron.

-from a christian who accepts evolution
User avatar #389 to #140 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
We don't teach it the way Darwin wrote it, while the basic facts on natural selection applies Darwin had a lot of things wrong that where improved upon with the discovery of medelian genetics.
User avatar #406 to #389 - ianchrist (02/11/2014) [-]
"We don't teach it the way Darwin wrote it"

When did you start working at my highschool?
User avatar #407 to #406 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
School curriculum states that scientific facts taught in school always needs to have the most recent data. If you really where taught evolution specifically as darwin wrote it then it's no wonder you don't seem to understand how it works.
User avatar #410 to #407 - ianchrist (02/11/2014) [-]
my entire post is an argument about the flaw in our public schools--in fact the nye-ham debate was all about teaching his model in school. Ham made a point that evolution is not taught correctly. I said that that was a good point.

What don't you understand?
User avatar #411 to #410 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
The thing is evolution is taught correctly in public schools, biology schoolbooks get frequently updated. Also thumbing me down isn't going to make you look any more credible.
User avatar #415 to #411 - ianchrist (02/12/2014) [-]
thumb down for misunderstanding my points, not for disageeeing.

I can assure you, it is not taught correctly in my school, and being from a very wealthy area in the northeast, i can assure you that in less-open minded and less funded schools they would not teach it correctly either
User avatar #416 to #415 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/12/2014) [-]
So now you're essentially just relying on anecdotes and assumptions, sounds a lot like Ken Ham's presentation.
User avatar #417 to #416 - ianchrist (02/12/2014) [-]
attacking a hole in the other person's argument instead of stating facts...
sounds like ken ham's argument
User avatar #418 to #417 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/12/2014) [-]
Alright then so how is evolution taught so incorrectly at your school?
User avatar #419 to #418 - ianchrist (02/13/2014) [-]
we were given forks and told to pick up fruitloops. Then they handed us chop sticks and we were told to pick up the same fruitloops.
The chopsticks were easier, so they told us that the forks would have died from not being able to eat the fruitloops.
A student rasies their hand,
"Why are there even chopsticks?" he asks "Where did they come from?"
"Genetic mutations," my teacher answers. "The fork randomly gave birth to a chopstick with no other downsides and it survived. Then their food sources ran out and they had to eat fruitloops, but they couldn't so only the chopstick lived."
"But," asks a confused student. "What are the chances that their other food would go away once the chopstick was born? What if the chopstick had been born back when they were eating spaghetti. It would have died. What if the chopstick had a mutation where it also didn't have legs, so it died. What about the mutation where the baby was a spoon or a laddel?"
"Well," the teacher tries to explain, sweating, "those other babies die. As for the chopstick, it just kinda happens. Its chance."
"So," says the first student, "all the forks would have died, and the entire lineage would have gone completly extinct if not for this chance mutation?"
"Yes," the teacher said. "And thats why you're all monkies."


This is basically how I learned about evolution in school. One of my best friends (an atheist) told me after class how it really worked. We talked more about natural selection, how every baby born has a mutation, and thus animals are constantly changing, and how evolution really only exists as a concept because we label animal species. One species does not magically turn into another, they are always changing, the argument is when we call it something new.

My main point is that the public school system is messed up, and Ken Ham is right--it takes faith to accept this model of evolution--but its because we aren't being educated properly.
*end rant*
User avatar #421 to #419 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/13/2014) [-]
Also literally no good public school teaches evolution this way, they would especially not make such huge errors like saying humans are monkeys when they are clearly apes. Your school just explains evolution very poorly, that doesn't mean the education system is flawed, it means your teacher is.
User avatar #423 to #421 - ianchrist (02/13/2014) [-]
I'm just going to leave this here (believe it if you will): my county is the 10th richest in the US and my highschool is in the top 100 in my state.

I must assume that poorer schools, or schools in the mid-west/south would teach evolution worse than my school did.
User avatar #425 to #423 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/13/2014) [-]
Teaching has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the school, it has to do with the quality of the teacher. And there are many intelligent teachers in poor schools who do properly teach evolution.

Furthermore the way evolution is taught in schools isn't defined by your anecdotes, it's defined by the actual biology textbooks, so i dare you to find me a certified biology textbook made by experts that actually made this chopstick fruitloops analogy.
User avatar #420 to #419 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/13/2014) [-]
That's not incorrect, it's just poorly explained.

The teacher uses chopsticks and forks as a metaphor of two species with the chopsticks being the ones that where more suited to the enviroment thus increasing the chance of the chopsticks surviving.

A better illustration would be with real animals, imagine you had a species of fish that could only eat a particular kind of food (let's use purple and yellow food for easy explanation), this species of fish can only eat purple food, but one day a genetic mutation happened in one of the fish that allowed him to also eat yellow food, this fish reproduces creating other fish with this mutation. Now there are two population of fish, one that only eats purple food and one that eats both, now if purple food where to become scarce it means that the ones eating only purple food have a low chance of survival and reproduce, meaning that the ones eating yellow food are more likely to survive, hence the fish now eating both evolved from the fish eating only purple food.

Food doesn't just go away the second the mutation appeared, he just used that as an example of the possibility that can happen in the process of natural selection.

Evolution is not just a concept, evolution is described as the change in the heritable traits of populations within generations, this happens and we can observe it, if there's enough heritable changes within the genes these will stack up gradually and eventually you will have over many generations an animal that is genetically so different that it can't interbreed with their ancestors or not even look like them anymore, that's when we label it a new species.

And contrary to what you think, species have turned into other species. The definition of a species is any animal that can reproduce fertile offspring, many ring-species can be found in nature that have evolved over time and can't reproduce with eachother anymore while they where the same animal 20-30 years ago.
User avatar #422 to #420 - ianchrist (02/13/2014) [-]
the point is that believing the .000000000001% chance that the chopstick would be born at the moment that the forks have to start eating fruitloops takes faith.

I never said that was how it worked. I said that was how it was explained to me in public school, which is what the entire ham-nye debate was about. Ham said "evolution takes faith, lets teach creation" nye said "no it doesn't shut yo mouth fool".
The reason that creationism is such a "popular' idea is that evolution, as taught in schools, makes no sense, thus ham had a point.

User avatar #424 to #422 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/13/2014) [-]
It's never implied that animals would be born at the same time food became scarce, he could've easily meant that the food became scarce a couple of generations after they where born. The point is that animals with specific genetic traits respond to their enviroment and the ones that suit the enviroment and are more likely to reproduce will pass on their genes and eventually evolve.

Evolution doesn't take faith just like gravity doesn't, because these are established facts backed up with mountains of evidence. Just because YOUR teacher happened to explain evolution poorly which he didn't even did by the book doesn't mean that the modern darwinian synthesis shouldn't be taught as fact at school.
User avatar #390 to #140 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
Also if you really understood evolution, you'd know that evolution doesn't say an animal changes into another animal.
User avatar #179 to #140 - wthree (02/10/2014) [-]
You personally have never been to the moon, but you till accept it's existence.
#194 to #140 - Rascal (02/10/2014) [-]
why does it take any faith to believe in evolution? that like saying it takes faith to believe gravity exists. We haven't observed animals changing into other animals but we have over whelming evidence that it happened, the same with the age of the earth.
User avatar #338 to #194 - ianchrist (02/11/2014) [-]
its mainly because it has to do with the origin of humans. Gravity, pfft, who cares, but how man came to be, what makes us who we are, free will, etc, are all touchy subjects. Thus they should be taught as philosophical questions, not "Facts" as my school did for me
#217 to #140 - cronois ONLINE (02/10/2014) [-]
I brought this same argument up before with a teacher citing the earth being flat, the earth being the center of the universe and continental drift becoming plate tectonics. Any opposing idea at the time was ridiculed by the scientific community at the time and written off cause an opposing argument was regarded as fact only to then itself be regarded as fact centuries later. In no part of the scientific method is "fact" involved, but that's the problem with the education system they tell children what to think, not teach them how to think.
#152 to #140 - yamadashinichi (02/10/2014) [-]
I should point out that the act of selective breeding in various animals is a form of evolution just being controlled by humans and as such is no longer in the hands of mother nature. True, this isn't exactly taking one animal and changing it into another but the process is there and given enough time, a new species could arise from this scenario.
#365 - zeroqp ONLINE (02/11/2014) [-]
**zeroqp rolls 7** Is the Bible all we really need? Be honest.
[ 417 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)