Evolution and Bible. THIS IS JUST A DESCRIPTION! More comics at . toonhole toon cartoon comic webcomic gag Bible evolution theory book Debate atheist

Evolution and Bible

Evolution and Bible. THIS IS JUST A DESCRIPTION! More comics at .

More comics at You need to login to view this link

Views: 53345
Favorited: 61
Submitted: 10/29/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to toonholekramer Subscribe to toonhole submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#53 - frotw (10/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #54 to #1 - adifferentjones (10/30/2013) [-]
You magnificent bastard, you beat me to it. Thumb for you, Patrick.
#167 to #1 - lamarisagoodname (10/30/2013) [-]
Very well done
User avatar #187 to #1 - twistedwoodthing (10/30/2013) [-]
Meme put to maximum proper use, 10/10
User avatar #15 - christheace (10/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #16 to #15 - whywouldyoudothis (10/30/2013) [-]
"I need no sympathy."
User avatar #31 to #16 - bokkos (10/30/2013) [-]
Cause I'm easy come
User avatar #35 to #31 - Ruspanic (10/30/2013) [-]
easy go
User avatar #70 to #35 - SirVladimir (10/30/2013) [-]
Little high, little low.
#141 to #70 - funnymanohword (10/30/2013) [-]
#155 to #141 - HarvietheDinkle (10/30/2013) [-]
#143 - kanadetenshi (10/30/2013) [-]
#148 to #143 - darkbringer (10/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #77 - asheskirata (10/30/2013) [-]
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
User avatar #80 to #77 - zomitlu (10/30/2013) [-]
Religious people could say the same about religion.
User avatar #81 to #80 - inbardo (10/30/2013) [-]
actually, they can't

Neil deGrasse was referring about the methodology. You can't deny scientific proofs, so you can choose don't believe in it, but you'll be wrong.
User avatar #82 to #81 - zomitlu (10/30/2013) [-]
Religions may accept religious proofs such as evolution, but that still doesn't stop them from saying that no matter what you believe in, their religion is true.

There's no total evidence that disproves a Deity's existence in the universe and there's no total evidence that there is, so we just have to let that one sit there.
User avatar #86 to #82 - asheskirata (10/30/2013) [-]
What you're neglecting to realize is that them saying "My religion is true." doesn't make it correct, whereas if you can prove something correct in science, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not, it's correct.
User avatar #88 to #86 - zomitlu (10/30/2013) [-]
No, I realise that.
User avatar #90 to #88 - asheskirata (10/30/2013) [-]
Then your original argument "religious people can say the same thing about religion" is meaningless.
User avatar #92 to #90 - zomitlu (10/30/2013) [-]
What I was saying is that religious people could utter that phrase, despite the fact that they have no evidence, and you wouldn't be able to say otherwise without full evidence to support you.
User avatar #93 to #92 - asheskirata (10/30/2013) [-]
Or I could just ask them to present their evidence and when they refuse I could tell them that their statement is meaningless and be on my way.
User avatar #94 to #93 - zomitlu (10/30/2013) [-]
They'd present their respective holy scripture and then this would become a whole other debate.
#203 to #94 - anon (10/30/2013) [-]
Oh **** ***** , what are you doing? NEVER go full retard.
User avatar #84 to #82 - inbardo (10/30/2013) [-]
well, that's not the point, it is?

we're talking about evolution.
User avatar #87 to #84 - inbardo (10/30/2013) [-]
and the "proof absence" does not proof anything...

This is an inversion. who alleges the existence of something is who needs evidence, not the inverse.

This is why
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
User avatar #85 to #84 - zomitlu (10/30/2013) [-]
Evolution is legit
User avatar #83 to #82 - zomitlu (10/30/2013) [-]
scientific proofs*
#39 - silentfapper (10/30/2013) [-]
In science a theory is a fact basically. Examples are cell theory and plate tectonics.
User avatar #172 to #39 - dairybun (10/30/2013) [-]
I think the problem is people mix up hypothesis and theory very easily, a hypothesis is how you believe something will turn out if A does B, a theory is more like the way one describes an understanding of how things occur, it has evidence, I find it hard to understand why some people cannot accept that there's more to our being than just what's occurring now.
User avatar #205 to #39 - lolofoeshow (10/30/2013) [-]
Yea, like the theory that the Earth was a cube and that the sun revolved around the Earth.

#239 to #39 - anon (11/07/2013) [-]
Although true(ish), you statement is somewhat misleading.
A theory is more of "an explanation for an observable phenomena based on the information that we have available"
Not quite the same as fact, but really it's the closest you're going to get with any logical backing.
User avatar #56 to #39 - forsakensaint (10/30/2013) [-]
Yup, everything in science is a theory.
User avatar #122 to #56 - Siphus (10/30/2013) [-]
Except laws and observations and hypotheses
User avatar #169 to #122 - lamarisagoodname (10/30/2013) [-]
We can apply laws but they're still just a theory, there's exceptions to every law. Also a hypothesis and observations are far from fact
#217 to #169 - anon (10/30/2013) [-]
A law is a set of observations you ******* **** nut.
User avatar #177 to #169 - commontroll ONLINE (10/30/2013) [-]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure gravity isn't a theory anymore. There are a few laws, but not many.
User avatar #188 to #177 - hesorama (10/30/2013) [-]
It's being debated by Dr. Erik Verlinde.. He's a string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam. He believes that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics. Something deeper than previously thought.
Of course I'm not going into depth.. You can probably find his studies fairly easily by searching his name.
User avatar #3 - mattdoggy (10/29/2013) [-]
User avatar #4 to #3 - icameheretotroll (10/29/2013) [-]
User avatar #10 to #4 - eatmaishorts (10/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #11 to #10 - shamrockd (10/30/2013) [-]
#14 to #11 - anon (10/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #17 to #14 - johnnygoldmane **User deleted account** (10/30/2013) [-]
#149 - anonymoose (10/30/2013) [-]
of ultimate destiny
User avatar #199 to #149 - thechosentroll (10/30/2013) [-]
Good guy, bad guys and explooooooosions as far as the eye can see.
#22 - jacklethesnake (10/30/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#159 - neemster (10/30/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #184 to #159 - galkawhm (10/30/2013) [-]
User avatar #196 - merrymarvelite (10/30/2013) [-]
Evolution is a theory,

Creationism is a hypothesis.
#210 to #196 - boothead ONLINE (10/30/2013) [-]
Well actually 'Theory' doesn't mean idea in the sense that you think of 'Theory' means it's true 98% and the other 2% is 'if you can prove it wrong' there are guidelines to prove evolution wrong though, nothing to this date has met these guidelines when it comes to fossils.
#237 to #196 - alexdial **User deleted account** (10/31/2013) [-]
It's not a hypothesis if it's an UNeducated guess
#151 to #95 - thenecromouser (10/30/2013) [-]
the net be the net
the net be the net
#40 - crycamellia (10/30/2013) [-]
mfw people try to argue over stupid **** with me
User avatar #26 - tittylovin (10/30/2013) [-]
Comments section makes me proud that so many people know what a scientific theory is and how it's different from the general use of the word.
#61 - sadistikal (10/30/2013) [-]
In science theory = fact, and a regular person's interpretation of the word theory is called a hypothesis.    
The whole "[Insert Name] is just a theory" crap is just arguing semantics. It's pointless and it needs to stop.
In science theory = fact, and a regular person's interpretation of the word theory is called a hypothesis.

The whole "[Insert Name] is just a theory" crap is just arguing semantics. It's pointless and it needs to stop.
#115 to #61 - stalini (10/30/2013) [-]
Theory is not a fact in science though, don't ******** us
#124 to #115 - sadistikal (10/30/2013) [-]
It's as close to a fact as you can get. Yes, you are all correct. However, my point still stands.
It's as close to a fact as you can get. Yes, you are all correct. However, my point still stands.
User avatar #173 to #124 - lamarisagoodname (10/30/2013) [-]
You can go about your life believing it's a fact and apply it to your designs (engineering would be useless otherwise) but you have to understand that every law we have come up with has exceptions so it's not technically a fact or a law, not that it makes a difference in the way we apply it but it's still very wrong to say it's a fact.

For example, you push on a wall and for some unseen reason the wall pushes back with an equal and opposite force. Lets call this the law of opposite forces and base our calculations off of it but we still have no idea why it pushes back
User avatar #121 to #115 - Siphus (10/30/2013) [-]
Yes it is.
#182 to #121 - stalini (10/30/2013) [-]
If you think it is, you should read more. By more I mean start for the first time in your life.
User avatar #228 to #182 - Siphus (10/31/2013) [-]
Im studying for my graduate degree in biology, I've read plenty.
#233 to #228 - stalini (10/31/2013) [-]
I'm albert enstein, hello.
User avatar #117 to #61 - lurifax ONLINE (10/30/2013) [-]
A theory is a fact until proven otherwise, I'd say
User avatar #75 to #61 - Namezone ONLINE (10/30/2013) [-]
while you are close, that's not right. A theory isn't a fact even in science, and never can be one. It's an extremely well checked idea that attempts to account for the way things work. For example: the law of universal attraction, the theory of gravity. a theory is not, and never will be, a law, or absolute fact, but it's a pretty good idea of how things in nature work.
User avatar #120 to #75 - Siphus (10/30/2013) [-]
Thats wrong.

Theories dont BECOME law. In fact, theories are at a higher level than laws. A law is a readily observable fact: When I drop this apple, it will fall to the ground. A theory is the explanation of a law: The apple falls to the ground because of gravity (theory of general relativity).

A theory IS a fact, or as close to a fact as you can get before you start entering into the abstract (What if we're actually all in the Matrix and this isn't real?!).
User avatar #229 to #120 - Namezone ONLINE (10/31/2013) [-]
"a theory is not, and never will be, a law"

i don't see how what i said and what you said conflict, but yours describes what a law is more correctly.
User avatar #230 to #229 - Siphus (10/31/2013) [-]
Yeah, I actually read that part of your comment wrong, oops
User avatar #170 to #120 - lamarisagoodname (10/30/2013) [-]
False, the apple falls to the ground because of an observable phenomenon known as gravity, we can calculate it's force but we have no idea how gravity actually works
#166 - soopabrentford (10/30/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #37 - mortolife (10/30/2013) [-]
Is it excusable to be a Christian and also believe in evolution to an extent? What does fj think?
User avatar #102 to #37 - badsamaritan (10/30/2013) [-]
Actually most Christian denominations believe in evolution. Its just the people who haven't gone to church since infancy who believe other wise.
User avatar #157 to #37 - thesovereigngrave (10/30/2013) [-]
There's actually a term for that, I believe it's called "theistic evolution."
#49 to #37 - batwill **User deleted account** (10/30/2013) [-]
It's not just excusable, but nothing special in my opinion. My belief, as a Christian who believes in evolution (not just to an extent, but as much as just about any other scientifically-minded person) is that evolution is an earthly tool of God, and that He used it to give humans a brain that could do science. To deny something so well supported by science as evolution is to deny that the rational mind He gave us is of any real use.
Simply put, if God gave us the ability to reason, and God is all-knowing, then surely reason wouldn't lead us to be wrong.
User avatar #190 to #49 - twistedwoodthing (10/30/2013) [-]
I'm a pretty confirmed agnostic and you have me nodding sir.
User avatar #50 to #49 - mortolife (10/30/2013) [-]
You have helped give me a better understanding of my belief. For that, eternal thanks my friend.
#58 to #49 - popeflatus ONLINE (10/30/2013) [-]
As a scientifically minded person you should then consider what evidence is really there to support your belief in Christianity.
#79 to #58 - batwill **User deleted account** (10/30/2013) [-]
Christianity isn't contrary to science, and is really unrelated. There may not be scientific evidence supporting my religion, but there isn't really any against it. Christianity for me is mostly about how I live my life and treat others. Jesus taught that people should be humble in their interactions, and generous with their material possessions. He taught his followers to be nonviolent and to not judge others' actions. I think these are all good values and I try to live my life along them.
#138 to #79 - popeflatus ONLINE (10/30/2013) [-]
He said to love him more than your own family and also he came with a sword....If he is willing to burn you forever for not loving him, then what sort of love is that? As far as there being no evidence, well, if there is no evidence then there is no reason to believe. The more you learn about history and world religions, the more you will become skeptical.
#225 to #138 - batwill **User deleted account** (10/30/2013) [-]
I'm not sure of what you're referring to when you say that Jesus claimed to come with a sword, and I'd be glad to hear where that comes from, but He was also the one who said that those who take up the sword will die by the sword. If you care for my response to the "love me more than your family" passage, which I do remember well, I'd be glad to discuss it, but that would be a longer tangent. Personally, I don't believe in the "fire and brimstone" kind of hell, because of the exact point you made, (plus there is very little support of it within the Bible.)
As far as I've ever seen, religion as the means of power by which a government leads has been harmful to people and the religion, but many individuals of faith have done a lot of good, on smaller scales.
Simply put, I recognize that my beliefs are just that, and just may well be founded in nothing, but I believe that coming to them has made me a better person, though I have nothing against those who have different beliefs that guide them differently, such as yourself.
#231 to #225 - popeflatus ONLINE (10/31/2013) [-]
I'm very happy for you to admit that you recognise that your beliefs may well be founded on nothing. Kudos!
#234 to #231 - batwill **User deleted account** (10/31/2013) [-]
Alrighty then. Glad to hear.
Alrighty then. Glad to hear.
#63 to #58 - anon (10/30/2013) [-]
um... HOW did big bang happen?
How could nothing say BOOM, and become everything (that's basically the big bang thoery summed up)?
Isn't it just too convenient that the world got formed, and you were born? I mean, what's the odds?

and lastly, to flip your question. With no explanation to WHY big bang happened, is there really a reason to believe it happened on itself with no help?

#66 to #63 - popeflatus ONLINE (10/30/2013) [-]
You are using the god of the gaps argument. If we don't know something in science we don't assume and answer or just say 'well, god did it'. Read Lawrence Krauss's 'A universe from nothing'.
User avatar #76 to #63 - viperish (10/30/2013) [-]
Isn't it the exact same with God. I mean, atleast to a person like me who dont know any fancy science(i.e. cant say if someone has any actual proof of it). And I'm referring to the man himself, not the world. If He created it, that's logical. But where did He come from?

With no explanation as to WHY or HOW God suddenly came to be, is there really a reason to believe it happened on itself, with no help?
User avatar #38 to #37 - pamman (10/30/2013) [-]
If its your belief, you can think whatever the hell you want. Nobody could stop that.

d-don't hurt me...
User avatar #41 to #38 - mortolife (10/30/2013) [-]
Well of course. No matter what replys I receive, I will still believe whatever the hell I want. I'm just curious to see what fj thinks of the concept because in the past, I have seen the majority to be religion bashing assholes that have labeled themselves atheist. A fine line between the two that one is.
User avatar #127 to #41 - Kaamraan (10/30/2013) [-]
I'm Muslim (which is pretty much the same thing in this context) and I believe in evolution
I believe that God, being all powerful, would have been powerful and intelligent enough to create the rules of physics and other scientific fields

I feel like Adam and Eve were actually metaphors for the first early humans, and that there were more than two of them
I personally think evolution could have been created by God too, and that there is a huge amount of information pointing to that rather than the common interpretation of the Bible
I don't feel like you have to be anti-religious if you want to be a scientist or whatever

I also feel like we don't need to follow our religions exactly the same way as every other person of the same religion if we want to consider ourselves believers of said religion
User avatar #129 to #127 - Kaamraan (10/30/2013) [-]
Also I don't believe humans were the first animals on Earth
#180 to #129 - anon (10/30/2013) [-]
Well, the Genesis literally says that we're the last animals created, not the first.
User avatar #227 to #180 - Kaamraan (10/31/2013) [-]
Oh right... I'm not extremely familiar with how everything's laid out in the Bible :|
My mistake
Was just adding that in there in case
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)