Creationists.... .. Anyone who bases their belief against creation on evolution is a moron. Biologist/chemist reporting in. Evolution is not a theory of creation-- a theory of the  Creationists Anyone who bases their belief against creation on evolution is a moron Biologist/chemist reporting in Evolution not theory of creation-- the
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (366)
[ 366 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
68 comments displayed.
#72 - diqface
Reply +79
(12/08/2012) [-]
Anyone who bases their belief against creation on evolution is a ******* moron. Biologist/chemist reporting in. Evolution is not a theory of creation-- a theory of the origin of the universe. Evolution is the change in allelic frequency over time based on natural selection. It can be thought of as a theory of human existence as it is today, but that's not what Darwin and his colleagues were trying to get at. As for the origin of the universe, there is no evidence either way in the creationist-agnostic/atheist debate. Sure, background radiation and the movement of galaxies away from each other point at a large explosion, but it makes just as little sense to say that based on the movement of the galaxies, we resulted from the big bang and there is no deity. No matter how much evidence we accrue, it will never be directly relevant to the argument, because, when you think about it, a deity could have created us through the processes proven by science. Unless we make a discovery in quantum physics that suggests that matter can be created, there's no argument against a higher being using science to create everything. As of now, it takes just as much faith to believe in spontaneous formation of the universe as it does to believe a higher power influenced our creation. I don't argue for either party, because there is no evidence supporting either thought. I will side with whomever gathers evidence. There's no sense in fighting and being douchebags to each other, when in all reality, we don't know where we came from originally. Right now, I lean toward creation, because I can rationalize it better than spontaneous existence, but there's nothing to gain in tearing each other down for divergent beliefs, unless said beliefs are harmful. Come on, guise. I'm tired of the "trolol Christians r dumb thumbs up" bandwagon. Just leave them be. We should all just respect each other. Not trying to be pretentious about my morals or anything. It just makes me mad.
#111 to #72 - churrundo
Reply -3
(12/08/2012) [-]
i agree with everything you say, but don't you think that it's time for religion to stop getting in the way of science? that's when it gets problematic.
#110 to #72 - esmebuffay ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
Couldn't have said it better myself, this picture I've had awhile encapsulates your final point about everybody leaving everybody alone. I don't care what anybody's beliefs are, it's their business, and I expect them to show me the same courtesy.
#246 to #110 - mooneh
Reply +4
(12/08/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#339 to #246 - esmebuffay ONLINE
Reply +1
(12/08/2012) [-]
Sorry, I forgot that thing shrank. I don't remember exactly what the first two said but the final one says simply "I have beliefs".
#222 to #110 - prepareuranas
Reply +3
(12/08/2012) [-]
yeah we can totally see the picture
#115 to #72 - slippythetoad
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
Read Genesis: Zen and Quantum Physics, it translates the original hebrew text word for word through ancient hebrew hieroglyphs and explains the true theory of newton's law of motion, our misleading view of everything in the bible, E=mc², and buddhist ideology. It sheds a light on creation and evolution, and why we are supposably different from animals. It however is focused towards ancient hebrew archaeology messianic jews but anyone can read it leisurely.
#117 to #72 - slippythetoad
Reply +1
(12/08/2012) [-]
I agree completely
#118 to #72 - bigmandan
Reply +1
(12/08/2012) [-]
brb, forcing everyone to read this comment.
#233 to #72 - shadowsspawn
Reply +1
(12/08/2012) [-]
You are awesome and you should feel awesome.
#160 to #72 - Pompano
Reply +2
(12/08/2012) [-]
Truthfully, there is no evidence either way as to the existence of god. Both sides are making unsubstantiated claims. However, atheists do not build on that unsubstantiated claim. Religious people exploit the grey area surrounding the creation of the universe to invent religious systems that control the minds primitive people.

You should familiarize yourself with the idea of Russel's teapot.
#280 to #72 - cruzslzr
Reply +2
(12/08/2012) [-]
you're pretty smart for someone named diqface
#348 to #280 - diqface
Reply 0
(12/09/2012) [-]
Why, thank you, cruzslr.
#349 to #348 - cruzslzr
Reply 0
(12/09/2012) [-]
you misspelled my name
prepare to die, slut.
#376 to #349 - diqface
Reply 0
(12/09/2012) [-]
*gasp*...the z...

nooooooooooooooooooooooooo
#378 to #376 - cruzslzr
Reply +1
(12/09/2012) [-]
mfw no z
#85 to #72 - afreeti
Reply +3
(12/08/2012) [-]
#87 to #72 - sailorsmooth
Reply +3
(12/08/2012) [-]
Best comment about religion I've ever seen
#296 to #72 - robertolee
Reply +3
(12/08/2012) [-]
Creationists tend to disagree with evolution completely so yes, this picture is completely fine. We know the Earth is older than 6000 years old and that fossil fuels take millions of years to form. You've turned this around as saying a deity could have created us through evolution but that is strictly against what a typical creationist believes, fair enough if someone believes it, I'm not going to stand there and tell them they're wrong because I can't disprove them, but when a typical creationist says Darwin was wrong, the Earth is 6000 years old and humans just popped into existence then yeah you can say they were wrong. I'm not sure how you got on to the origin of the universe from this as this picture only really uses time to disprove creationism that the Earth is older than 6000 years old but I do also agree with you that this Christian bashing is just stupid, if people want to talk about religion in a serious way ask your teacher or go to a debating website. Thanks for reading, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you or insult you, so I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way.
#345 to #296 - diqface
Reply 0
(12/09/2012) [-]
I'm not insulted, lol. I know that creationists tend to believe in a young Earth, but I was pointing out that there are a lot of creationists that can accept scientific fact, and that belief in creation is just as valid as belief in spontaneous existence, so bashing creationists is uncalled for. Bashing young Earth believers, I can understand, because there is overwhelming evidence of the Earth being more than 6000 years old. I will say that a 6000-year-old Earth is not out of the realm of possibility, because there may be properties relevant to radiometric dating that we are unaware of, but right now, it is pretty illogical to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. I just don't like reprimanding people for their beliefs, if the beliefs aren't immoral. If someone wants to believe the Earth is 6000 years old, I think that is fine. That person just can't participate in any science that depends on the Earth being 4.5 billion years old. I will say that I thumbed this content because it was funny. I do not let my opinions get in the way of finding humor. Thank you for your reply. I like sparking conversation, lol.
#254 to #72 - corsairjoshua ONLINE
Reply +4
(12/08/2012) [-]
Has a well thought out reply on the creation of the universe.

Named "diqface"

Proud.
#347 to #254 - diqface
Reply +1
(12/09/2012) [-]
I'm glad my name came as ironic, instead of actually defining my behavior, lol.
#73 to #72 - graydiggy
Reply +12
(12/08/2012) [-]
no homo
#74 to #73 - diqface
Reply +7
(12/08/2012) [-]
No homo taken
#86 to #73 - fuperbooper
Reply +3
(12/08/2012) [-]
We all know it was homo, graydiggy.
#98 to #86 - graydiggy
Reply +7
(12/08/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#8 - phanact
Reply +41
(12/07/2012) [-]
This picture is just a joke, I don't intend to make anyone mad. Please don't hurt me
#223 - iliketires
Reply +31
(12/08/2012) [-]
#269 to #223 - ankh
Reply +3
(12/08/2012) [-]
That made me laugh... Wayyyyy too much
#121 - esmebuffay ONLINE
Reply +27
(12/08/2012) [-]
MFW people argue about religion on the internet. Do you actually think you're going to change anybody's mind?
MFW people argue about religion on the internet. Do you actually think you're going to change anybody's mind?
#284 to #121 - cruzslzr
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
I honestly think that yes you could. Given that a good argument is made it can open the mind of someone else and they can eventually talk to a priest or some religious figure and learn more, and ultimately make the choice to convert or not
I was actually influenced by one of Jehova's Witness
I owe him my life essentially
#123 to #121 - darthblam
Reply +1
(12/08/2012) [-]
I once saw an atheist guy convince a supposedly Muslim "man" (may have been a kid) to rethink his belief.. not sure if that counts or not.

I don't have any pics to prove with. It was quite a long time ago... on Youtube of all places.
#131 to #123 - esmebuffay ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
It stands to reason that in a million arguments one person's mind would change, but I have yet to see it happen. One reason changing people's minds online is so hard is because you can only really talk to them once, even if it's a long conversation it wouldn't necessarily stick with him, plus everybody rethinks their beliefs at some point in life, most people do it more than once, generally they go back to what they were before, whatever that happened to be.
#139 to #121 - pseudobob **User deleted account**
Reply +6
(12/08/2012) [-]
Because on the internet, we make fun of people indiscriminately. PS I am agnostic, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson
#340 to #139 - esmebuffay ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
I'm no atheist (in fact I'm protestant) I'm just more than tired of hearing people flapping their gums, in the end everybody's more steeped in what they believed before, in a bad mood, and resentful of the other party, it's not good for anyone. If people could just accept other people think other ways and leave it at that the world would be better off, and I'd have less of a headache.
#148 to #139 - RugbyKing
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
Neil de grasse tyson argues against religion, says that it impedes humanity. he does not know of an overlying lord, but he doesnt care.



Here you go www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w
#341 to #148 - pseudobob **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
#394 to #341 - RugbyKing
Reply 0
(12/12/2012) [-]
Exactly what I just said, thanks though.
"he does not know of an overlying lord, but he doesnt care"-Agnostic

In the same breathe he discusses how religion is hurting humanity.

My point being that Neil DGT does in fact go out of his way to show that religion is a negative force on humanity in my video and in others. If you're using him as your champion, realize that he does argue against religion, he isn't a "I dont give a **** and i dont discuss it" agnostic. Really if you're using him as an example then you should be like "Hey asshole, you're disrupting science with your Noah's ark ********".

Tis all I'm saying... I only disagree with you in the point that NDGT shows discrimination towards certain faiths, which seems to attack the first bit of your sentence.
#395 to #394 - pseudobob **User deleted account**
Reply 0
(12/12/2012) [-]
When I said I'm agnostic like Neil, I meant like Neil, not just, we fit in the same peg. Also I don't see how not believing in a God (or anything spiritual) automatically discounts his opinions. He's an astronomer and educator and, like the entire scientific community, has been completely in line saying that if there is a god, we haven't found it yet.

As a side note I think Buddhism and Hinduism are better in principle than judo-catholic beliefs because they take death pretty much at face value and still manage to convince their believers to be good people, whereas Christianity, Judaism, and Islam act like death is a way out. That is really not something to include in a modern world view.
#232 - avatarsarefornoobs
Reply +23
(12/08/2012) [-]
If i had a dollar for every redundant antichristian post on this site, Rockefeller would **** bricks when he saw my fat stacks.

This **** isnt even funny anymore its so overdone.
#258 to #232 - malevolentspoon
Reply -5
(12/08/2012) [-]
Why is this a meme?

Seriously?
#245 to #232 - enclavesoldier
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
this is not anti-christian, but rather anti- dumb ass. Sorry to hear that offends you
#241 to #232 - pandadiablo
Reply +4
(12/08/2012) [-]
Even practically, I don't think I've ever run into anyone my age who is a creatonist (that I've had to argue with). People believe in god, but almost no one has a problem with science.
Even practically, I don't think I've ever run into anyone my age who is a creatonist (that I've had to argue with). People believe in god, but almost no one has a problem with science.
#11 - teamrocketninja ONLINE
Reply +19
(12/07/2012) [-]
****** miracles man
#248 - mooneh
Reply +15
(12/08/2012) [-]
I'm agnostic, so.
#257 to #248 - RandomAnonGuy
Reply -3
(12/08/2012) [-]
I used to get mad when I saw people using agnostic as a position in and of itself. Now I just ask why. You're saying "I'm not absolutely 100% sure of my position" without giving a position. The way I'm looking at it agnostic theist or agnostic atheist is just a better way to go because it actually answers the question "Do you believe in a god"
#290 to #248 - pinacleofevolution
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
that's what the catholics - and most not retarded christians - say.
#307 to #248 - buttershaker
Reply +1
(12/08/2012) [-]
Well, you know, the Big Bang theory was made by a Belgian priest from Charleroi who was also a scientist and mathematician. When he came up with his theory nobody believed him, even Einstein didn't believe him! But later on Hubble officially proved that his theory was right, and Einstein later claimed that not believing this theory was the biggest mistake in his life.

Tl;dr religious man originally came up with Big Bang theory

Pic related, it's George Lemaître with Einstein
#50 - lulzdealer
Reply -8
(12/08/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Where the hell do you people keep getting the "earth is only 6000 years old" thing from? The Bible never actually states that, and if you actually read it instead of just being like "hurr durr cristains r so dum haaha dey think earth is 6000 years old lolololoo" you'd know that.
#52 to #50 - Crusader
Reply +15
(12/08/2012) [-]
Actually, if you accept that Jesus was approximately 2000 years ago, and trace his lineage back (considering that it gives a full lineage) Adam and Eve were only 4-5 thousand years before Christ, making the world 6-7 thousand years old.

So yea, in the bible it IMPLIES that the world is 6-7 thousand years old
#53 to #52 - jonnytobey
Reply +4
(12/08/2012) [-]
You're definitely right, the Bible doesn't flat out say "At the time of you reading this, the Earth is 6,000 years old", however like you said, the time is given between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ. After that it's basic math.
#90 to #52 - anon
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
The Bible explains a Pre-Adamic earth aka LIFE BEFORE ADAM like dinosaurs n' such.. That's what I learned from actually studying the Bible out of faith. It's okay to expect most christians to only go to church once or twice a week and not actually study the Word of God. They are what you would call "baby christians." aka the ones who know close to NOTHING about the Bible and what it says.
#99 to #90 - Crusader
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
Except there is no life pre-adam and eve, they were created day 6.
#94 to #90 - ThatsSoFunnyHeHe
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
How was there life before Adam and Eve if he made them on Day 6?
#83 to #52 - filthyargonian
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
except that only dumb **** ass Monkeys take the stories in the old testament literally.
#92 to #52 - RoyalNightmare
Reply -1
(12/08/2012) [-]
Well, given that the story of Adam and Eve isn't taken literally, I don't see how it can be counted. I mean, I haven't been to a single Church that says they think Adam and Eve actually happened. It's more of a moralistic story to explain how humans fell from blissful ignorance into sin. (Not taking any sides, just throwing that out there).
#54 to #52 - lulzdealer
Reply -2
(12/08/2012) [-]
except that the creation of man doesn't mark the first day of the existence of earth.
#55 to #54 - Crusader
Reply +2
(12/08/2012) [-]
No, it's what?
The 5th day?
Not nearly enough of a gap to argue over, if the bible said "And in the thousandth year, god grew lonely, so he created man in his image from earth ..." then it would be enough to argue over.
But as it stands, if you believe in the Biblical creation story, then it was when the earth was 3 days old (since god created the earth on the 2nd day) and therefore, is not enough of a time difference to argue over.
#56 to #55 - lulzdealer
Reply +1
(12/08/2012) [-]
who knows if they're literal days, though? i don't take the "earth created in 7 days" part literally. mainly because of the overwhelming evidence of the earth being, what is it? like 4 billions years old or something like that?
#57 to #56 - Crusader
Reply +1
(12/08/2012) [-]
Doesn't matter, it's what the creationists believe.
And that is what we are arguing, what Creationists believe.
#59 to #57 - lulzdealer
Reply -1
(12/08/2012) [-]
yes, and that's dumb of them to believe so. anyway, i guess there is kind of an implication, but the fact remains: there is no explicit statement.
#60 to #59 - Crusader
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
Almost everything from the bible is implication, very few of the common verses were actually written by the people that people believe wrote them, the bible has been rewritten and revised numerous times.
#200 - komradkthulu
Reply +14
(12/08/2012) [-]
Funny thing is, the Christian Bible makes no claim upon the Earth's age. It was some asshole a while back that just made some ******** guess off the top of his head.   
   
As to our existence, science tries to endeavor toward an answer to how, let religion try to make a "why" and don't mix and confuse the two.   
   
If we did this, we'd all be happy for about five minutes until we found some other insignificant thing to argue over.
Funny thing is, the Christian Bible makes no claim upon the Earth's age. It was some asshole a while back that just made some ******** guess off the top of his head.

As to our existence, science tries to endeavor toward an answer to how, let religion try to make a "why" and don't mix and confuse the two.

If we did this, we'd all be happy for about five minutes until we found some other insignificant thing to argue over.
#259 to #200 - RandomAnonGuy
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
Half right, the bible makes no direct claim, it was some asshole adding up all the ages of the prophets and stuff to get how long ago creation was supposed to happen.
#51 - mrvegeta
Reply +11
(12/08/2012) [-]
The way I was explained be creationists is that God put the oil in the ground for us.. A bit arrogant I think, but that's the idea.

Also, when dealing with creationists, you actually just have to throw every bit of logic out the window
#58 to #51 - Crusader
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
It's not that you have to throw logic away, you just have to use logic similar to it.
I like to argue that the universe was originally 32 black and 32 white zones like a chess board, and that demons lived in the white and we lived in the black and that they are able to cross over and it will be everlasting peace once the Kah-Gash is re-assembled

So basically, I take the entire thing from a fictional book about demons written by Darren Shan.
#66 to #51 - anon
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
Sounds like the perfect religion for woman (No logic needed)!
#70 to #51 - BIGSEXYISBACKAGAIN
Reply 0
(12/08/2012) [-]
If that we're true why wouldn't he make it a little easier to get to. Scumbag god.


******* logic man.