Ignorance. But that's not helpful D: Hope this isn't a repost folks. Found it on SU. Much love. Top 100? Get back in my bed you filthy animal and let me show yo
x

Ignorance

 
Ignorance. But that's not helpful D: Hope this isn't a repost folks. Found it on SU. Much love. Top 100? Get back in my bed you filthy animal and let me show yo

But that's not helpful D:

Hope this isn't a repost folks. Found it on SU. Much love.

Top 100? Get back in my bed you filthy animal and let me show you my appreciation.
Top 80? I'll let you be on top tonight.
You've taken my top 15 virginity. I worship you all.

Iii
So the video gewust watched in chemistry said we are made of star dust...
hamm weired.... i have to say people are dumb haha
Like ' Comment 1_ ago
That video is correct. Ely star dust they mean the atoms
released into the universe when the star dies. The atoms required for
lifelike carbon and nitrogen and oxygen would not exist ifthey
weren' t created inside the cores of stars through fusion. Atoms
required for planets and other rocky bodies such as iron would not
exist without the larger and hotter stars. The higher along the
periodic table you go the higher the temperature is needed to fuse
atoms together and create those elements.
7 minutes ago ' Like
l: thanks for the paragraph but that crap isnt true.
sorry... read the bible it helps:)
6 minutes ago ' Like
EZEKIEL
12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt
bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1981
Views: 44431
Favorited: 229
Submitted: 12/23/2011
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to tattibojangles submit to reddit

Comments(747):

[ 747 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#95 to #72 - crookedgrin (12/24/2011) [-]
dust
noun
The substance to which something, as the dead human body, is ultimately reduced by disintegration or decay; earthly remains.

We never stop being dust.

To claim there is dust of something that is no longer considered dust when it is in human form and then reverts to dust again is just trying to class humans as seperate from nature.

When you vacuum up dust, it clumps together and then is disposed of to rot and seperate. It isn't not dust when it clumps in the bag.
#198 to #72 - qazaibomb (12/24/2011) [-]
science... and religion... AGREEING????


#209 to #198 - anon (12/24/2011) [-]
bahai.
#75 to #72 - anon (12/24/2011) [-]
God used science.
God used science.
#76 to #75 - ghio (12/24/2011) [-]
**ghio rolled a random image posted in comment #273 at Terrible Childhood Memories OC ** God used science before it was invented. God is hipster.
#148 to #75 - hivihauir (12/24/2011) [-]
Comment Picture

#48 - Irishgreen (12/24/2011) [-]
The Bible says we are made out of dust too......
+28
#662 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#706 to #662 - anon (12/24/2011) [-]
Isn't it so frustrating to live in a planet where there are people like this...? and to see all that stupidity and to know that it's in one of the most developed countries where there are lots of people like this...I mean...I would like to kill all those specimens..but sadly there are too many...It would be easier to commit suicide xD
I mean, really? "That crap isn't true? :)" (I hate that smiley face) that Richard Simmons is happily devaluing all the years of effort and research of thousands of scientists saying "that crap is not true :)" with a smiley face at the end. And all that crap in the Bible, it's true? will you blindly believe in the absurd explanations that people thousand years ago used to believe in order to explain the creation of the universe and of life (which is called "miths"), because they had no way to explain, given that their knowledge did not allow them to investigate or obtain other explanations? Yeah, that makes much more sense.
User avatar #755 to #662 - jossyboy (12/24/2011) [-]
this couldn't have been said better, i completely agree with you. im not religious but that is my choice, like you choose to believe what you want to. i dont force my beliefs on religious people, they shouldn't force theirs on me. unfortunately it happens way too much
0
#761 to #755 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #710 to #662 - HonkIfIDriveWell (12/24/2011) [-]
You're claiming to be both rational and religious? Those two words just don't go together like that.
+1
#718 to #710 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #728 to #718 - HonkIfIDriveWell (12/24/2011) [-]
Don't get me wrong; I wasn't insulting you, it's just that faith is quite literally the opposite of rationality. Faith is belief without evidence (by definition) so to be simultaneously rational and religious is pretty much impossible.
0
#735 to #728 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #737 to #735 - HonkIfIDriveWell (12/24/2011) [-]
So you're rational by default, but make an exception for your faith? I'm interested to know, what compels a rational mind to become irrational for the subject of existentialism?
0
#748 to #737 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #750 to #748 - HonkIfIDriveWell (12/24/2011) [-]
You're faith is just that ,faith. It's not rational; it can't be. That would defeat the purpose of what faith is.
0
#752 to #750 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #757 to #752 - HonkIfIDriveWell (12/24/2011) [-]
I never meant to suggest that your faith didn't make sense to you, but rationality and sense are not always mutual, especially not in the case of faith.
0
#762 to #757 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #763 to #762 - HonkIfIDriveWell (12/24/2011) [-]
No, I'm afraid they're not. However, you can always resolve that faith is more important to you than rationality in the case of your religious beliefs, if you so choose. That aside, you strike me as someone who is either confused or unsatisfied with some part of your current views/beliefs. I must apologize in advance if you are insulted by what I'm about to say, but I can't help but suggest that perhaps, if you are so desperate to rationalize your faith, then perhaps faith itself just isn't for you.
0
#766 to #763 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #767 to #766 - HonkIfIDriveWell (12/24/2011) [-]
I must admit, initially I was only trying to make you realise that rationality and faith are completely incompatible (which somehow you still haven't managed to completely grasp, despite the fact that even the most devout creationists embrace this fact), but upon seeing your desperation in trying to combine your faith with rationality, I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be struggling with your faith far more than the average religious person. It just seems to me that you're rational mind disagrees with it, and even if it's only subconsciously, you just know better.
+1
#722 to #721 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#3 - cshady (12/23/2011) [-]
#267 - cpawsome (12/24/2011) [-]
Bitch
Did you not read EZEKIEL 21:19-20
#91 - millamanjaro (12/24/2011) [-]





Kill her.
#621 - lordmuffin (12/24/2011) [-]
Comment Picture

-2
#298 to #228 - narkyelite **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
+23
#627 - themadliteralist **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #714 to #627 - HonkIfIDriveWell (12/24/2011) [-]
I really, REALLY hate to be that guy, but...... *you're.
0
#789 to #714 - themadliteralist **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #630 to #627 - EvilSquiggly (12/24/2011) [-]
Jesus dust? lol.
+28
#633 to #630 - themadliteralist **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#638 to #633 - EvilSquiggly (12/24/2011) [-]
Well then.
#430 - silentkiler ONLINE (12/24/2011) [-]
Comment Picture

#359 - DrollHumor (12/24/2011) [-]
This is where it's great to be agnostic.   
   
One friend "I believe there is  a God." Okay.   
Other friend "I don't believe there is a God." Okay.   
   
I could care less! I mean, I kinda like the idea of having an all powerful forgiving God but then I feel like I'm 8 hoping Santa is real.    
   
Regardless! I want to shoot people that deny factual science for their religious beliefs, like the above. It's like saying, "Hey that's a poisonous viper you have three inches from your face, you should probably put him down." "Oh please! I don't believe in poison!" *Bite* *their screams* *my laughter*
This is where it's great to be agnostic.

One friend "I believe there is a God." Okay.
Other friend "I don't believe there is a God." Okay.

I could care less! I mean, I kinda like the idea of having an all powerful forgiving God but then I feel like I'm 8 hoping Santa is real.

Regardless! I want to shoot people that deny factual science for their religious beliefs, like the above. It's like saying, "Hey that's a poisonous viper you have three inches from your face, you should probably put him down." "Oh please! I don't believe in poison!" *Bite* *their screams* *my laughter*
#504 to #359 - alphabroadsword (12/24/2011) [-]
Either way, Science proves there is no god, and religion proves there is a 'creator'.
We all have diffrent kinds of 'evidence' to rely on to prove our belief.
And to those who think people that are VERY religous don't believe in science, i think that's some ******** . It's impossible to not believe in Science, sure, they have some parts against it, but that doesn't mean they are like that.
#785 to #504 - pedobeahr (12/24/2011) [-]
religion doesn't prove anything, it claims it.
evidence is evidence, no sugar coating can change what we observe into a fairy tale.
#812 to #785 - alphabroadsword (12/27/2011) [-]
Yet it is a belief that should be tolerated/respected.
I have no problem with anyone believing in something different- enforcing it is another thing.
User avatar #370 to #359 - warzon (12/24/2011) [-]
What is this god you speak of?

all i know is two things i keep in mind and thats in gameing...
Blood for the blood god(Khorne)

And for the emperor...i dont know whatever he wants
#482 to #359 - alphabroadsword (12/24/2011) [-]
I'm Christian yet I'm not so religious.
I don't put religion above everything else most of the time, but what bothers me is the "Which religion is implausible or possible" debate. I mean does it really matter?
Were better off respecting the individuals beliefs, or prepare for a ********* of biblical verses.
User avatar #379 to #359 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
Factual science disproves Darwins theory of evolution based on the fact that he himself stated that his theory of evolution revolves around the cell being simple...

Whilst science in the 1950's and even earlier had proven that the cell is more complex than the best computers even to date.
#388 to #379 - DrollHumor (12/24/2011) [-]
Really? That sounds interesting.

In spirit of this post... Pic or it didn't happen. I would like a link to this info. Cause now I'm curious.
User avatar #394 to #388 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
It's in his book on the theory of evolution, he says that the cell is a simple sphere of plasmid.
User avatar #413 to #394 - GuardianofzeBlind (12/24/2011) [-]
Despite the information you're providing (true or not, I do not know), evolution is true. Questioning evolution is like questioning gravity, relativity, electromagnetism, etc.
User avatar #443 to #413 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
A true scientist questions every theory presented to him, and considering that evolution has yet to be proven as a scientific law, it is still just a theory.
#454 to #443 - DrollHumor (12/24/2011) [-]
I like you! At first I thought you arguing just for the sake of arguing, because hey, it's the internet. So pulling out the "link to credible info" usually shuts people up, but no! You know what you're talking about!

<--- :3
#452 to #443 - GuardianofzeBlind (12/24/2011) [-]
Again I must correct you, science IS a time-honored scientific law. It's not just a theory, it's a scientific theory. Questioning evolution is like questioning relativity, gravity, electromagnetism, cell theory, etc.


User avatar #463 to #452 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
Gravity, and electromagnetism are the only scientific laws you mentioned.
The ruling on a law is that it's never wrong, and a law cannot be disproven.
A theory, on the other hand, can be disproven. Einsteins theory on quantum physics is considered a joke by the rest of the scientific world specifically because he both proved and disproved the theory in the same formula (you'd have to look it up I'm too lazy to link it).
Maybe you should look up the difference between a theory (which has NOT been factually proven) and a scientific law, which has, and continues to prove itself correct.
#733 to #463 - pedobeahr (12/24/2011) [-]
oh ******* lawl, that was the biggest joke i ever heard.

A scientific theory, a truly reputable one has been proven, and is constantly receiving new evidence, a scientific law has ever been a theory, not once, it is attached to theories, but has never been a theory.

Evolution has been factually proven, i could send you to a few experiments, but considering you failed to grasp the concept of theory vs. law i doubt you would truly profit from them, but i well anyways, so this doesn't sound like a ******** post, which i know ignorance will always do.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._co...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exper... this one has a couple listed

And perhaps you should read this short article on the difference between a theory and law.

notjustatheory.com/
User avatar #779 to #733 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
Didn't einstein say that you can prove a theory right a thousand times, and yet, you disprove it once and it's no longer an applicable theory?
If you didn't read any of my other posts, Darwin stated that his theory is applicable as long as the cell truly is a simple sphere of plasmid.
Since, the cell isn't a simple sphere of plasmid, and as that was in the actual hypothesis of Darwin's theory of evolution, doesn't that mean that his theory is no longer applicable?
#784 to #779 - pedobeahr (12/24/2011) [-]
the small details change, not the whole theory, for example.

Democritus: we are made of atoms, they are indivisible
Rutherford: yes we can, i just did it
LHC: we can really tear them apart

So do we remove the atomic theory? no, we change it for the new evidence. Theories can be proven right 1000 times, but once we prove it wrong, we change the theory, not abandon it.
Darwins original theory is not used, we changed it for the new evidence, dozens of times at least, i would imagine.
The point is he opened the door for evolution, even if his theory was wrong in areas, he got it right on natural selection, so what we do is take natural selection, compare it to new evidence, correct inconsistencies with our theory, and ship it out. we do this all the time.

In the future natural selection might be invalidated, not likely but it might, but that won't invalidate evolution, just that part of the theory.
User avatar #801 to #784 - LuckyStrikes (12/25/2011) [-]
How can you trust an ever changing theory to be true, if it has yet to be solid enough to not stand up to its tests?
And you call it factual science when you place a constantly disproven and changed theory on the same level as a law of physics.
#805 to #801 - pedobeahr (12/26/2011) [-]
Evolution has passed every test, every single one, with flying colors, it is not changing to be wrong, no too much evidence, just little things will change, and always for the better, always for the better.

i don't understand your last sentence, are you saying theories change laws don't so theories are wrong?
that would be implying a theory is anything like a law. Yes, i call it a fact, later on we might find new evidence, but that's later on, evidence that does not yet exist IS NOT EVIDENCE.
User avatar #807 to #805 - LuckyStrikes (12/26/2011) [-]
Like the evidence of the missing link that connects us to monkeys... that evolutionists are just "positive" exists.
#809 to #807 - pedobeahr (12/26/2011) [-]
we are not nor have ever been connected to apes, gorillas or orangutan's as an ancestor-newest stage relationship, rather we all share a common ancestor. And furthermore, besides fossil record we have dozens of other types of evidence, chromosomes, missing chromosome became "bonded" to another one, so many similarities, fossil evidence would be like icing on the cake.

We simply don't need those fossils, it must exist somewhere, but it is a miracle we have half the fossils we have now, given how long it takes, how many things could go wrong, and the excavation sites, we have excavated probably about less than a few percent(being generous can't remember exact amount off top of head), and yet we have found so much, who's to say that we can't find more? It's nearly a fact they exist somewhere, we just have a lot of work to find them. Also we never use those fossils, never ever as evidence, as we haven't found them, but we must always be looking for something new. Did quantum physicists stop looking for the Higgs when they couldn't find it after a few tries? did String/M theorists stop after the realized we couldn't produce the strings with out tech? no, they kept finding new evidence, as must biologists, always always always.
User avatar #813 to #809 - LuckyStrikes (12/27/2011) [-]
You remember that big archeological site they had in Antarctica... the one where they found a perfectly preserved wooly mammoth? For decades scientists said that the wooly mammoth was a cold climate creature, and that the ice ages happened over hundreds and hundreds of years. The find this mammoth and see its actual fur, the thid, coarse hairs on it... and come to a realisation that the mammoth would've been a warm climate creature, and the fact that it was so perfectly preserved means one of two things... it was pretty-much flash frozen, or it fell into the ocean at such a time where it would've been nearly flash frozen.

Look it up, I'm at work, right now, and can't be on here long.
User avatar #814 to #813 - LuckyStrikes (12/27/2011) [-]
Basically, I'm trying to say that scientists like to think they have **** figured out, but then something big pops up and they're ****** with all of their theories on it.
#816 to #814 - pedobeahr (12/27/2011) [-]
great, we all already knew this, we definitively know nothing(well that's not true either but lets say it), so we will use the best evidence we have right know, it may and probably will be overwritten in the future, but as for right know, this is the best it gets.
the way evolution works might be changed for new evidence, not likely, any changes would likely be in knowledge of speciation, but certain things just won't change. For example, we know the shape of the earth, it is an oblate spheroid, and no future evidence will change that.
User avatar #817 to #816 - LuckyStrikes (12/27/2011) [-]
Still, a change in any information in the hypothesis in a theory is a change in the theory itself... Evolution, as it is right now, changes almost yearly.. yet the claims are still that the theory of evolution is based on "hard, factual science". In reality, the theory is as fluid as water, always moving, always being changed, and filtered, and added to...
I don't trust it for that very reason.
#810 to #809 - pedobeahr (12/26/2011) [-]
apologize for any grammatical mistakes or spelling mistakes i made, just woke up.
User avatar #470 to #463 - GuardianofzeBlind (12/24/2011) [-]
Hmmm, nope. I've done plenty of research on this and I'm right. They're scientific theories, like any scientific theory (electromagnetism, relativity, what have you) they're considered correct until something comes up that disproves or changes them.
You must be thinking of Kepler and Newton's laws of motion, etc.
User avatar #479 to #470 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
They're called laws of nature, look them up.
They always exist, and they are always proven right.
If you wouldn't mind showing me exactly which textbook and/or science documentaries which state that a theory is on the same level as a law of nature, I'd be happy to change my opinion.
User avatar #489 to #479 - GuardianofzeBlind (12/24/2011) [-]
I can't show you anything right now because I'm almost falling asleep. But rest assured, if you pm me I can explain evolution as a fact to you further...but tomorrow
I'm curious as to what your exact "beefs" are. Good chatting,
User avatar #491 to #489 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
It's been a slice.
#726 to #443 - pedobeahr (12/24/2011) [-]
but theories never become laws.
User avatar #777 to #726 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
Exactly... and since a theory is only applicable so long as it's never been disproven.
You can prove a theory right millions of times, and the instant it's disproven it is no longer an applicable theory, as stated by einstein.
User avatar #419 to #413 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
So, what caused original life to come to exist, and what forced it to evolve, as it is original life and had no viable competitors for existence??
#451 to #419 - GuardianofzeBlind (12/24/2011) [-]
Do you really wanna have a science lesson? Well the moon was much closer so the tides were more extreme. There's one factor. But I'm gonna stop and try to avoid writing a small essay. Basically we have good hypotheses for the origins of life itself, in the primordial oceans there were the right conditions for life to arise (I advise reading the book 'Rare Earth', it explains a lot of this in great detail and you would certainly learn a lot from it). Needless to say, the first self-replicating molecules arose. How exactly? I do not know and don't think anyone does for sure. However, science has more to go on than any religious asswipe does. Nothing forces life to evolve, it does on its own by means of natural selection. And just because the original life had no other immediate diversity does not mean that there was not competition or natural selection within their own populations. If you truly understood natural selection and evolution then you wouldn't have had to ask that question. So the only valid concern you have is the origin of life itself, which as I said, scientists have a much better understanding than your prophets. However, your other questions are answered by a basic understanding of evolution. Come back to me when you've passed your basic biology course. If you want an interesting read I highly suggest Rare Earth, it would help you with a lot of this scheisse
User avatar #467 to #451 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
Does the book describe the creation of DNA?
Because you brought up the specific theory which I already mentioned... the "primordial soup" theory is characterized in the chance theory.
If you had read Chance & Necessity, you'd also have realized that the theory behind the primordial soup is little more than a joke.
#550 to #467 - deadlypear (12/24/2011) [-]
Although it has been speculated that the first life may have had RNA, which is a little bit simpler DNA. And because of this it has a higher chance of actually happening.
User avatar #480 to #467 - GuardianofzeBlind (12/24/2011) [-]
The book does go into some good detail on the creation of DNA. However, I am a bit rusty. It has been almost 2 years since I read it. Also yes, I've read Chance and Necessity as well, it's also been about 2 years since I read that one. And that book isn't a case against evolution, though it was an ok read.
User avatar #490 to #480 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
I never said it was a book against evolution, I stated that it strikes out the theory of chance, which characterizes the primordial soup.
There was a popular science article which stated that the amount of time it would've taken for life to come into existence on earth would've been nearly 3 times the amount of time that astrologists predict the universe has been in existence.
User avatar #498 to #490 - GuardianofzeBlind (12/24/2011) [-]
I think you mean astronomy, astrology is b.s

User avatar #515 to #498 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
yeah.... i've been awake for 23 hours, and I didn't even get one of my usual three daily cups of coffee... I was completely out yesterday morning.
User avatar #442 to #388 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
By the way... I'm osting the URL to Charles Darwins book on your page.
User avatar #431 to #388 - LuckyStrikes (12/24/2011) [-]
There are three basic theories of how life first came into existence, chance, necessity, and a hybrid. I haven't yet studied the hybrid, much.

The chance theory was disproven in the fact that it states that the perfect mix of elements bonded at the precise time to create the first life. If that were the case, then how is DNA explained. DNA is the building block of all known life, yet, the bonds in the base proteins that hols all of the information needed to produce the components of the cell are not bonded... without DNA we don't have life, the separate DNA strands aren't bonded, therefore the chance theory is null.

Next comes necessity theory, which states that life came into existence because it needed to, or something along that line. If that were the case, what made it necessary for life to come into existence?
#53 - ZombieSquirrel (12/24/2011) [-]
Ezekiel 23: 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

#619 - anon (12/24/2011) [-]
Google 'Ezekiel 23 20'



Post reactions.
0
#684 to #619 - vanhoutte has deleted their comment [-]
#628 to #619 - mur (12/24/2011) [-]
Wasn't expecting that.
Wasn't expecting that.
#605 - gibssowas (12/24/2011) [-]
I'll leave this here.... just in case....
#614 to #605 - okthxbye **User deleted account** (12/24/2011) [-]
***** please...

…I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
#616 to #614 - gibssowas (12/24/2011) [-]
how could i be so blind :O
#332 - wheredawhitewomen (12/24/2011) [-]
"We never win because you only believe in science!"
"We never win because you are fat!"
#345 to #332 - littlebigr (12/24/2011) [-]
a thousand thumbs to you my friend.
#254 - Utkezabanje (12/24/2011) [-]
Comment Picture

#62 - anon (12/24/2011) [-]
EZEKIEL 25:17
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper, and a finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.
AND YOU WILL KNOW MY NAME IS THE LORD...WHEN I LAY MY VENGEANCE UPON THEE!
#73 to #62 - mrevitcartta (12/24/2011) [-]
Movie is sick as **** .
User avatar #655 - uzerc (12/24/2011) [-]
What does everyone have against the bible?
I think it's a marvelous fairy tale.
User avatar #687 to #655 - techketzer (12/24/2011) [-]
It's a **** tale and misleads people to think that crap actually happened.
+6
#665 to #655 - starboundreturns **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#700 to #655 - ltgsaurus (12/24/2011) [-]
Yeah. It's nice but I kinda prefer reading Lord of the rings.
Yeah. It's nice but I kinda prefer reading Lord of the rings.
#689 to #655 - thefifthgiraki (12/24/2011) [-]
…Because it's full of plotholes?
#695 - anon (12/24/2011) [-]
#709 to #695 - wowimbored (12/24/2011) [-]
better one
[ 747 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)