Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#239 - youngmoneysobased
Reply -2
(01/26/2013) [-]
according to Neil degrasse science is true weather you believe it or not when many scientist believe and voice their belief in creationism. Therefore creationism is true by Niels logic. good on you Niel
#262 to #239 - frylord
Reply -1
(01/26/2013) [-]
its true
#248 to #239 - twitchalicious **User deleted account**
+5
has deleted their comment [-]
#288 to #248 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Just like your scrotum
#250 to #239 - merrymarvelite
Reply +7
(01/26/2013) [-]
What many scientists believe =/= science
#222 - respectmyauthority
Reply +7
(01/26/2013) [-]
******* Neil Degrasse Tyson knows how we do!

Can't wait for the Cosmos rehash, he will bring honor to the Sagan
#227 to #222 - snakefire
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
I have a carl sagan folder
#242 to #227 - zombiesnipertwo
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
I know, Op knows, he knows, people reading this knows.
everybody know!
#244 to #242 - snakefire
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
#247 to #244 - zombiesnipertwo
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
more likely than you think
more likely than you think
#249 to #247 - snakefire
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#252 to #249 - zombiesnipertwo
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#254 to #252 - snakefire
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#263 to #254 - zombiesnipertwo
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
last one and everyone's favorite
#267 to #263 - snakefire
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
#74 - viacotwelve
Reply +7
(01/26/2013) [-]
honestly, i don't see why religion and science have to be completely separate from each other. i'm a christian, i'll say it, and i firmly believe in evolution and all that. everyone seems to have a science vs. religion mentality, but i think they can coexist pretty well if you let them.
#97 to #74 - gammajk ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
But that doesn't stop the fact that god is a hypothesis proposed by people attempting to explain how the universe works and that people will use science to counter it. We aren't just going to ignore one hypothesis because it's "religion".
Plus, I wouldn't care what people believed if it still didn't influence political decisions even when it's in the very basis of this country for it not to do so.
#114 to #97 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Since I predict this guy will be down-thumbed to hell, I'll state my agreement with a comment.

The initial reason for religion to explain that which was not understood. (What's the sun? Why is there day and night or summer and winter? What is life and death?)
While it has taken more of a "moral" standpoint recently as science explains these things, an all powerful creator with rule over everything really isn't necessary for morals. Morals and a god figure are separate, morals are considered a philosophy, while god is considered a religion. (All sects of Christianity believe more or less in the same god, you might even be able to throw Islam and Judaism in there, they just have separate philosophies telling them how to live their life.)

Regardless of that, the Bible still makes claims as to WHY, claims which we know to not be true. So a true Christian would conflict with science.

I'm not going to argue religion here, but realize that the Christian faith says the bible is the ONE TRUE WORD OF GOD. That's an all or nothing thing, you can't pick and choose as to what we know to be wrong (now) and what remains undiscovered by science (exactly how life began).
So if you are truly religious, you can not agree with science. If you do combine the two, your religion is illegitimate because you are picking and choosing based on judgement of the flawed man rather than the perfect omnipotent declaration of god.
#499 to #114 - viacotwelve
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
I don't think the Bible necessarily is the one true word of God, honestly. It was written by several different people. Several different people tend to make mistakes. And I don't think my religion is illegitimate for "picking and choosing." Many different religions based around the same God have different beliefs, and I don't think Christianity necessitates taking every single word of the Bible literally. I'm not trying to argue with you or anything. I'm mostly just trying to justify my own beliefs rather than contradict yours. Really, the whole point of my original comment was to try to make people argue a little less, so I don't want people getting angry over anything I'm saying. I'm looking at the replies now, though, and it seems I actually CAUSED an argument with my comment... That kind of sucks.
#504 to #499 - anon
Reply 0
(01/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, and that would be the same argument I would use against someone who did believe the bible is the one true word of god.

The thing is, when you just start picking what you WANT you believe and what you don't WANT to believe, that's all it comes down to. What you WANT, not what is true.

And this is one thing that confuses me about how tied some people are to modern religion. Because ultimately, their beliefs aren't based on any one "word of god(s)" source, but what they personally WANT to be true, drawn from any number of sources.
If you can't trust the biblical god for some things, why can you for others? Who's to say the one god model isn't just what some old fart WANTED back a couple thousand years ago and the reality is that the Roman system of gods is most accurate?
#109 to #74 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
because the idea of a god is literally something that transcends the natural world.
#117 to #109 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Whenever I see things like this I die a little on the inside.

If I ever go crazy and start murdering random people, it will definitely be at a philosophy school. (I'm not serious in case anyone freaks out due to recent shootings)

"It transcends human thinking" is the weakest argument in existence. You might as well just scream "I'm right" then plug your ears and repeatedly yell "I'm not listening" like a three year-old having a temper tantrum.
Regrettably, there is no way to counter the argument either, because anyone foolish enough to use it can not respond to sensible, logical discussion.

Goddamn I hate philosophy students.
#129 to #117 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Who said "human thinking"? I said the "natural world" as in, something that did not have something greater than it to create it. But you can go ahead and attack philosophy students (where the **** did that even come from, you must be teeming with buttrage over something). The solid truth is, the principle of a God is, by definition, something which bends nature to its will, something that is beyond the realm of what can occur without outside manipulation.
#163 to #129 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Philosophy students are mostly people like you, who want to make arguments based on nothing. "The solid truth"... Yeah...

So if the big bang were the initial point rather than a conscious god, it would still "bend nature to its will?"
Also note you are staying "the principle of god" not "god." Yes, many things claimed to be done by god are not possible with our current technological and scientific ability, but that has nothing to do with the "idea" or "principle." Your statement reads as claiming a human can not understand the (human-constructed) idea of god because "the IDEA of god transcends the natural world" or "the PRINCIPLE of god bends nature to its will."
(Also note the argument: high-technology appears to be magic to those who do not understand it. Referencing that some Native Americans saw Europeans as emissaries of their gods due to their rather simple technology. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it can't be understood.)

Even when it comes to powers outside the scope of science (ref: Newtonian physics not applying on a molecular scale), new rules can be made to understand it, because after all, it IS part of nature. There is no such thing as "supernatural" or "transcending nature" because anything to which those tags could apply to is simply something that we can not interpret with our rules of science as they are. If it can occur it is NOT "transcending" nature, it's simply out of the scope of our current understanding of the rules of nature.

People thought going at the absurdly fast speed of a train was "beyond natural possibility" too, they didn't understand it.
#177 to #163 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
and if it fits with nature, it is by its very definition not a god. Holy ****, how can you not understand this. A god, by its very definition is beyond what is natural. If there is a natural explanation, it is not a god. A god, by definition, dictates what is natural, thus he is beyond it. It doesn't matter what people THINK is true, it is about what is true, regardless of who believes it. If it is beyond the scope of the actual truth, not the perceived truth, it is a god. If it is not outside that scope, it is not a god.
#231 to #177 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Like I said, "Anyone foolish enough to use this argument can not respond to sensible, logical discussion."
#174 to #163 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
again, I didn't say WHAT PEOPLE THINK IS TRUE I said what IS ACTUALLY TRUE. God damn you're thick.
#111 to #74 - nucularwar
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
it's because some of the worst examples of your religion DON'T let them. nothing against you or your beliefs, but that's the problem.
#113 to #74 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Here's the deal. Religion and Nature are butting heads. Science is a methodology for determining truth, both religion and nature are explanations of existence. That said, they are generally separate because science will generally give you the natural world explanation while religion will give you an explanation that is beyond natural occurrence. Once you start drifting toward acceptance of an opposing theory, you're by definition drifting away from your original theory. Science is just the tool that justifies which direction you go.
#317 - pikapoo
Reply +6
(01/27/2013) [-]
WHY DO PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO EXPRESS THEIR SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS IN THE COMMENTS OF FUNNYJUNK

#357 to #317 - elburritoextremo
Reply -2
(01/27/2013) [-]
BELIEFS

BELIEFS

BELIEFS

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
#409 to #317 - thebeastlyhound
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
because it human science to talk science biotch
#323 to #317 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Because there are so many ******* retards who claim science to be untrue because it conflicts with their ********** views on life.
#328 to #323 - pikapoo
Reply +4
(01/27/2013) [-]
I get that but why express it on a site where LOL ******* passes for comedy? It's nearly as bad as youtube comments
#333 to #328 - dedaluminus
Reply +5
(01/27/2013) [-]
LOL

*******
#354 to #328 - mcfunkdaddy
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
because funnyjunk is always about the funny...
#454 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Evolution is just as much a fact as some religions are. So is gravity and many things about science.

Anon because I'm a little bitch
#464 to #454 - bottleofwater
Reply +5
(01/27/2013) [-]
You can't compare evolution or gravity, or any other scientific theory to religion. They have physical evidence in this world that proves their existence, compared to religion, whose only evidence is a book written thousands of years ago.
#468 to #464 - hocolol **User deleted account**
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#470 to #468 - bottleofwater
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
I know that there is evidence against science, but I didn't feel like droning on and on and just wanted to get the central point out.
#474 to #470 - hocolol **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#487 to #474 - bottleofwater
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
This has been the nicest argument I have ever had.
#489 to #487 - hocolol **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#491 to #489 - topazxwolfify
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
theres a single flaw in both of them that completely ruins there validty, something has to be made from something is doesn't just "appear" however
science is more of an explanation of how everything is going on after everything was made and religion tries to explain the other stuff that's happened, either way they seem like a means so an end, agnostic ftw~
#366 - demandsgayversion
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
The thing with global warming is that we have NO observations on it. The issue is something that would need dozens of years of study, but it's only been thought of for twenty odd years. To say there is or is not global warming is just your own pretentious ass trying to commend yourself for being environmentally aware. It's definitely something that should be studied, but there's no way to tell whether we as humans are escalating the temperature changes or if it's just going at it's natural rate.
#377 to #366 - imonaboatman
Reply +5
(01/27/2013) [-]
2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S.. 99% of species that have lived on Earth are now extinct. Global sea level rose 17 centimeters in the last century. The 20 warmest years in recorded history have all occurred since 1981. The polar ice caps are melting at unprecedented levels. Between 150 and 200 species become extinct each day. There is much more evidence to support this. Global warming is not just someone's "own pretentious ass trying to commend yourself for being environmentally aware", with all due respect. Global warming activists are simply knowledgeable people who are trying to save our planet from certain destruction.
#430 to #377 - arkfire
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Okay so some people say that burning fossil fuels(which produces ozone) are the problem but ozone doesn't just keep heat in it also keeps heat out so in theory it should be a balanced system.
#386 to #377 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
People who say they don't believe in global warming mean that they don't believe that humans are causing it. They believe it to be a natural cycle of the planet, and there is nothing we can do about it.
#406 to #386 - imonaboatman
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
That is a possibility. However, most evidence indicates that it has been brought on by human activity, in particular, the excessive carbon released into the atmosphere through automobiles, industry, and other sources,as well as rampant deforestation, which destroys the one of the planet's largest carbon reservoirs, thus allowing previously unheard of amounts of CO2 to enter the atmosphere. In the likely event that global warming is caused by human activity, it's best to take preventative measures. If it's natural, then you're right - there's nothing we can do about it. But it makes a lot more sense to run on the assumption that it is man-made and potential save ourselves and our planet than to do nothing on the assumption that it is a natural cycle.
#379 to #377 - demandsgayversion
Reply -4
(01/27/2013) [-]
I'm sure humans caused the ice age, too. Oh wait, you mean that was a natural event of extreme climate change? OH WOW!
#381 to #379 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
#266 - infinitereaper
Reply -4
(01/26/2013) [-]
Expect when it isn't. Science has false facts throughout forever and will continue to have so.   
   
New discoveries and progress.. its a tricky business.
Expect when it isn't. Science has false facts throughout forever and will continue to have so.

New discoveries and progress.. its a tricky business.
#494 to #266 - infinitereaper
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
All of you go **** yourselves. The original point stands. Science will arrogantly tout the truth. Hell, what I mean by "False Fact" To begin with was not a literal false fact but a something believed to be a fact which was not a fact. Putting abstract and concrete thinking aside. God damn it FJ grow up.
#496 to #494 - pariahlol
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
You tell us to grow up and you're the one being an arrogant prick over here. It's as if you **** out stupidity.
#498 to #496 - infinitereaper
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Personal attack. This is the internet. This is a ********* post. If you can't understand that's not my problem. Your probably just another bitch as teenager who thinks they know everything when they really don't know ****. Or a man who simply hasn't grown up yet.
#282 to #266 - capslockrage
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
There is no such thing as a "false fact", that's an oxymoron, just like yourself, a moron.
There have been THEORIES that are decades and sometimes centuries old, that have proven to be untrue.
A hell of a lot better than "You just have to have faith!"
#302 to #282 - infinitereaper
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
I'm not even religious you stupid twat. You fail to see the true logic at work here.

How many facts were known as truth throughout the centuries? A fact is just a human illusion. Truth is just our best guess... ah I'm not even going to argue and waste my time.
#315 to #302 - iamsuperior
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
They were known as truth, but if they weren't truth, then they weren't a goddam fact. They were believed to be a fact, but they weren't. Does gravity exist. Yes it ******* does and you can't refute that. Therefore, we have a fact. Did we evolve from Monkeys? Perhaps, but there is no definite proof, so it's not a fact. Got it?
#306 to #282 - infinitereaper
Reply -2
(01/27/2013) [-]
It's the same as peopel who think of a dream as "not real" such flawed logic.
#382 to #306 - capslockrage
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Dreams aren't real, they are dreams.
#383 to #382 - capslockrage
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Dreams themselves are real, but not the things that happen in them.
#493 to #383 - infinitereaper
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Half correct. But this is closer to the fallacy. Our definition of a fact is a fallacy. Science is plagued by too much pride. It's putting us back a few centuries in scientific progress.
#270 to #266 - theblupster
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
False facts do not exist. A fact is an inherently true statement.
#273 to #270 - infinitereaper
Reply -3
(01/26/2013) [-]
False facts do exist. They are labels for something in reality. A fact can be true, or it can be a lie. Just like 1 could represent one rock, that 1 isn't the rock. For example, imagination: it is real. It's imaging taking place in your head in electro bla blah form. You're over thinking this mate.
#304 to #273 - pariahlol
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
You're a special kind of stupid aren't you
You're a special kind of stupid aren't you
#308 to #304 - infinitereaper
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Whatever gets you to sleep at night. The fact is the matter is I'm probably more intelligent than half the people here. You would think because I just said that it cannot possibly be true. But this is just mob mentality. You think a few red thumbs makes me wrong? You think you're right because of the horde of people who can't understand the difference between the word cat and the actual collection of cells?

Don't make me laugh.
#312 to #308 - pariahlol
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Look up the goddam definition of a fact. It's an undeniable assertion that is true and cannot be disproven. If it can be wrong, or false, then it's not a fact. It can be passed on as a fact, but it will never actually be a fact. You think you're more intelligent simply because you are you. As such, you are the center of your own world, and your ego is so enormously overgrown that you cannot accept that there are individuals out there who may or may not have intelligence of a level higher than you. In conclusion, go **** yourself. Pic related
Look up the goddam definition of a fact. It's an undeniable assertion that is true and cannot be disproven. If it can be wrong, or false, then it's not a fact. It can be passed on as a fact, but it will never actually be a fact. You think you're more intelligent simply because you are you. As such, you are the center of your own world, and your ego is so enormously overgrown that you cannot accept that there are individuals out there who may or may not have intelligence of a level higher than you. In conclusion, go **** yourself. Pic related
#492 to #312 - infinitereaper
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Mwa ha ha. Oh lordy. You can burn in hell trash. This is just wordplay and definition. Ah. My personality type wouldn't be rare if we were to agree. Just be silent sheep.
#495 to #492 - pariahlol
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
That's not goddam word play. You were stating what a fact means in your comments, and you were ******* wrong, so I stated the true definition. Seriously kill yourself
#497 to #495 - infinitereaper
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
I keep telling you we cannot absolutely be sure absolute truth is absolute.

Consider physics. If we are off by even a trillionth of a decimal point in our factual figures they aren't facts. Everyone believes in it but they are false. My anger has run out. Assholes like you can rot in the patheticness that is your life. Enjoy it.
#275 to #273 - theblupster
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
If there is even a shadow of a doubt, it is not a fact. If it cannot be disproved, it is a fact.
#274 to #270 - punkrockdude ONLINE
Reply -4
(01/26/2013) [-]
Just look at global warming. There are tons of false facts about it, such as the scientists that skewed data to make it seem worse than it is a few years back
#276 to #274 - sphyrna
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
source?
#284 to #276 - punkrockdude ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Heard about it back in 09 or 10 but don't feel like actually finding the article. Basically a climate scientists email was hacked and revealed that a report he made had certain data skewed to prove his hypothesis. Think they were calling it climategate or something
#299 to #284 - sphyrna
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Hmm i think I remember that actually. My only thing with it is that this was one guy, while plenty of data exists apart from his that indicate climate change is occurring. I would agree though that the issue has been taken by many and used in misleading ways, however
#229 - Canucklehead
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
Come back to FJ for the first time in a month.

Leave disappointed.

Why does this site have to be so conservative? Religion should not be compared to science.

Science does things in a way religion could never do.

The scientific method should take priority over religion by a fair margin every time.

If you're religious, that's fine. But we're not using that to determine where we come from.
#170 - icanflyy
-8
has deleted their comment [-]
#183 to #170 - anon
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
The word "theory" refers specifically to something that has been peer-reviewed and validated with sufficient concrete evidence for it to be safely considered an absolute fact.
An educated guess (and the word "educated" is important here) that has not undergone such confirmation is a hypothesis, not a theory, and such guesses are so regarded by the scientific community.
#185 to #170 - ninjasquirle
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Like gravity, lets test it. Go jump off a bridge an see if you fly up.
#186 to #170 - desacabose ONLINE
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
#146 - didactus
Reply +5
(01/26/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#395 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
A post insulting religion? Better thumbs it up.- Atheistfags
1. Mormons give more money to charity according to Income Tax Returns than any other group of people in the World, Atheists give the least amount of money to Charity according to Income Tax Returns.
2. Atheists mass-murdered over over 300 million people in the World (over 80 million people were mass murdered by Atheists in China alone) last century, Mormons mass-murdered exactly zero amount of people in the past.
3. Members of THE Church Of JESUS CHRIST Of Latter Day Saints believe in keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ, Atheists believe in whatever happens to strike their fancy.
4. Atheists are part of a death-cult, Mormons are part of a life affirming Church. Simple as that.

Mormon : 4
Atheists : 0

God bless.
#440 to #395 - cameforalaugh
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
**** off anon you are ******* retarded, just because someone does not believe in an imaginary deity does not mean that they are from a death cult. Religion has killed millions more people than any atheist could. Look at hitler, he killed over 6 million Jews because he thought that they were inferior because of their religion. So don't go blaming atheists the things you **** up in this world
#465 to #395 - caras
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Only part that is true in that is Number 1.
#469 to #395 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Religious people don't have a monopoly on morality.

Sometimes it's easier to do good things when you believe you'll be rewarded in the afterlife. Does that make atheists more likely to do bad things? That's debatable. What this does means is that the atheists who do good things do them because they want to, not because they have a higher power to reward them.
#478 to #395 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
#2 atheists murdered 300 million people in the past century...what....where was that even taught in the history books.
#4 atheists are totally part of a death cult, I mean, look at how they don't attend church on Sundays and choose to sleep in. those bastards we have to stop them!
#419 to #395 - bronybox
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
Atheists are part of a death-cult.
#450 to #395 - SonofChuck
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
1. Pastafarians are able to pay their taxes in oodles of noodles.
2. Pastafarians save millions of children by filling their bellies with starchy pasta goodness.
3. Members of the Church of Chef Boyardee believe in guarding the ingredients of Chef Boyardee's holy moly ravioli.
4. Pastafarians are a part of a nutritious and delicious meal. Simple as that.

Mormon: 0
Atheists: 0
Pastafarians: 4
#404 to #395 - mffinmanu
Reply +4
(01/27/2013) [-]
atheist mass murder
#413 to #404 - drroxxo
Reply +2
(01/27/2013) [-]
Mormons winning.
#314 - strawberryyogurt
Reply +4
(01/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#305 - Crusader
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
But both of those are theories.
Well, not global warming, that's a fact, the theory is whether humans are responsible.
But as I was saying, the thing about theories, is that they are not definite, they still need to be proven absolute.
#318 to #305 - autoxx
Reply -6
(01/27/2013) [-]
Global warming isn't a fact...
Every independent study or scientist that doesn't have his head up his ass know global warming is a myth.

We might have gone through a warming trend but research has shown that it was a tiny blip on an overall chaotic temperature history. We are actually in one of the coldest periods in a few thousand years...
#324 to #318 - Katzie
Reply +4
(01/27/2013) [-]
That the earth is heating up is a fact.
We just don't know whether it's our fault, and when it will end (if it does).
#329 to #324 - autoxx
Reply -6
(01/27/2013) [-]
Did you learn that from David "the sky is falling" Suzuki?

You have to look at who funds the research, special interest groups get lots and lots of munnies for being noisy.
#335 to #329 - Katzie
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
So it's all a conspiracy?
Fake research doesn't work as well any more, there are dozens of well funded private researchers out there, hoping to discover their own things or debunk old theories.
#336 to #335 - autoxx
Reply -2
(01/27/2013) [-]
Debunking theories doesn't keep the lights on, do you have any idea the amount of money the people "researching" global warming get?
Like I said, any INDEPENDENT study has yet to find ANY kind of evidence to support the theory of global warming.
#321 to #318 - Crusader
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Global warming.
The idea that right now we are warmer than at any other time in recent history.
If you read my other comment below, I basically said what you said right now.
The fact is, right not, compared to 100 years ago, it is on average warmer.
Although compared to 100 000 years ago, it is cooler.
So yes, in recorded history, it is a period of warming during a cool period.
The theory is that humans have anything to do with it.
#313 to #305 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
There is sufficient evidence for both evolution and mankind's involvement in global warming that the vast majority of scientists believe both are true beyond a reasonable doubt
#316 to #313 - Crusader
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
There is evidence that green house gases are in the atmosphere.
But the thing is, the earth goes through natural warming and cooling trends, if you look at the temperature for the past 100 000 years, it looks like an EKG
#326 to #316 - autoxx
Reply -2
(01/27/2013) [-]
There is always greenhouse gas in the atmosphere dingleberry...
You want to stop global warming? Ban volcanoes.
Those bad boys put out more **** than humans ever have or will.
#337 to #326 - TuccessfulSroll
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
>implying cars don't make more co2 than a volcano.    
   
That was a pretty fast way to lose credibility. Well done.
>implying cars don't make more co2 than a volcano.

That was a pretty fast way to lose credibility. Well done.
#342 to #337 - autoxx
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
One volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gas than we have or will for the next hundred years.

Think about it, where are most of the volatiles contained? In the clouds or in the ground?
Super heating deposits in the crust releases millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Hell, even forest fires account for a surprisingly large amount of global pollution.
#343 to #342 - TuccessfulSroll
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
Let's see the study. Stop blowing smoke out of your ass, we have been DUMPING green house gases with cars. Show me a SINGLE study that proves what you are saying.
#345 to #343 - autoxx
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#346 to #345 - autoxx
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#348 to #343 - autoxx
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
dammit...
Well here is the page, the "pic" was actually a gif.

www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html
#352 to #348 - TuccessfulSroll
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
Ah yes, you've managed to prove that co2 didn't effect global warming, but that wasn't my problem with what you said. Cool, there was more co2 in the air thousand of years ago, but again, this isn't what I said was wrong. Proving that there was more co2 then does not prove that a single volcanic eruption "puts out more green house gases than we could in 100 years."... So... Try again.
#325 to #313 - pokerdog
Reply -1
(01/27/2013) [-]
But there isn't that much evidence of evolution.
There is evidence of micro evolution, but not much evidence of macro evolution, sure we know that different eye/hair/skin colours are caused by mutations, but we don't know if the difference between lions, tigers and jaguars are caused by evolution, etc.
#334 to #325 - autoxx
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
We have evidence of one type of finch developing different beak shapes over the period of several hundred generations to eat specific types of food.
That is specifically what Darwin wrote about in the Galapagos islands.
#332 to #325 - anon
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
"It would be different if evolution was wrong, even one time.. So far, it's passed the test with flying colors."
#362 to #332 - Crusader
Reply 0
(01/27/2013) [-]
That would be because if evolution failed, the being died
Downs syndrome
Turners syndrome
Cancer
Huntington's disease
These are all failed evolutions
It would be like saying "Everyone in this class passed the test, because we put everyone who failed in a different class"
#291 - fudale
Reply +4
(01/27/2013) [-]
This man gives me hope
#300 to #291 - stoopidmonkie
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
My man, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
#303 to #300 - fudale
Reply +1
(01/27/2013) [-]
I've been listening to his radio station and watching his you tube videos. I just thought people like him didn't exist anymore. He gives me hope
#271 - HeartOfTheDL
Reply +4
(01/26/2013) [-]
Lately you'll tend to find out that the "scientific" people are more in-your-face-suck-my-dick-religion-sucks-westboro-baptist-church.
I get humour and I do laugh at silly things about religion and my religion but this has become "religion sux" bashing hence the most hated church reference. I don't care if I get red thumbs for posting this but seriously guys you are becoming the monster that you all say is the scum of religion.
#224 - Yesitsme
+4
has deleted their comment [-]
#27 - pinesol
Reply -3
(01/26/2013) [-]
And yet he still refuses to believe Pluto is not a planet
#32 to #27 - smellykidagain
Reply +4
(01/26/2013) [-]
Pluto is not a planet. There are many other "planets" the same size, if not bigger, than pluto. Pluto was just one of the first ones we found and we thought it was a planet.
#36 to #32 - pinesol
Reply -1
(01/26/2013) [-]
My point here was that Neil DeGrasse does not accept Pluto is not a planet and yet says it doesn't matter if you believe science of not. I am saying he is being hypocritical
#90 to #36 - klondikemonster
Reply +1
(01/26/2013) [-]
What are you talking about? Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the black scientist in the image, was one of the men who decided that Pluto wasn't a planet. He knows it's not a planet and he believes that it's not a planet.
What are you talking about? Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the black scientist in the image, was one of the men who decided that Pluto wasn't a planet. He knows it's not a planet and he believes that it's not a planet.
#69 to #36 - nightmaren
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
No, planet is just a word used by humans to describe the balls of varying substances an size floating around in space. He's not hypocritical by helping disprove Pluto as a 'planet'. It's now classified as a dwarf planet, so it's not a fact that he's ignoring that it is a planet.
It's just words and classifications. It's not a fact the Pluto's a planet. The only fact there is to what Pluto is, is that it's a big rock orbiting a star. In fact, Pluto is officially recognized as a dwarf-planet, not a planet, so Neil isn't being hypocritical whatsoever.

I'm not sure why people make such a big deal over what Pluto's officially recognized as. Yeah, Pluto has a cute charm to it, but I don't see the need to get all butthurt that it's not officially recognized as a planet anymore. If anything, I think it being a dwarf-planet is cuter than it being a full planet.
#37 to #36 - smellykidagain
Reply 0
(01/26/2013) [-]
Oh my apologies, I rea your comment wrong. lol Yeah I guess he is hypocritical.
#18 - KungFuZerO
Reply +4
(01/26/2013) [-]
Maher: I have faith a show featuring Tyson will be a good show, because he's been a good guest before.
Tyson: No, you have evidence that it will be a good show.

Maher, wut are u doing
Maher, stahp.
#320 - liarsenic
Reply +3
(01/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#331 to #320 - liarsenic
Reply -3
(01/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#251 - everyonesbuddy
Reply +3
(01/26/2013) [-]
Post about pluto's demotion. Next post about ndt, the original pluto killer.
Post about pluto's demotion. Next post about ndt, the original pluto killer.
#257 to #251 - ExorArgus
Reply +2
(01/26/2013) [-]
Its not so much killing pluto out of the regular planets, its more they added it to a closer family where it would feel more welcome.