Owned.. . as Van HAVE EVIDENCE I EVOLUTION... THEN WRITE IT DOWN, _ I an If PEER REVIEWED L} 9. COLLECT ‘mun PRIZE .'. I met a priest once who said that dinosaurs were real but they weren't allowed on Noahs ark. Owned as Van HAVE EVIDENCE I EVOLUTION THEN WRITE IT DOWN _ an If PEER REVIEWED L} 9 COLLECT ‘mun PRIZE ' met a priest once who said that dinosaurs were real but they weren't allowed on Noahs ark
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (136)
[ 136 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
86 comments displayed.
#2 - thelastprothean
Reply -26
(12/30/2012) [-]
You know, it's kind of funny that when some Christians say that there is no proof that God doesn't exist, Atheists rage, but when an Atheist makes the same argument, no one says anything.
#3 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
I know right? The media seems to be filled with bias.
#7 to #3 - ThatsSoFunnyHeHe
Reply +8
(12/30/2012) [-]
>Implying the media supports atheism
#8 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claims. If you claim there is a God, prove it. If you claim that Evolution is false, prove it, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. That's the beauty of true science, it will take criticism, change and adapt. But first you have to prove it, like Darwin and countless others have.
#10 to #2 - daentraya
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Maybe because they still believe in something like that? The chances of it being seems so small that it's ridiculous, but we still cant be sure about whether it's real or not. Also, some few acts of religiousness are stupid and violent as ****. There's also the implications one wish to convey with it. One is 'just lemmi hav my religion ya heathens and the other 'well, we cant be sure that it's fake, but hey, science works' or something like that. The movie Matrix could just be a test to see if we'd stay in the Matrix without suspicion
#12 to #2 - retris
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
True you cannot completely disprove that a "God" or "gods" exists however you can make a strong argument against many of its tenets.
#45 to #2 - hadzz
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Absence of proof is not proof of absence

MFW that fallacy has a wikipedia page
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
#19 to #2 - jarelk
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
That's because it is the responsibility of the person making a claim to prove it, not for others to prove it wrong. There is an analogy called "Russel's Teapot", coined by Bertrand Russel. It basically says that if he were to claim there was a giant teapot hovering around the sun, it would be nonsensical of him to expect others to believe him just because they can't prove him wrong.

Pic unrelated, it's a bunch of oranges.
#4 to #2 - heartlessrobot
Reply +6
(12/30/2012) [-]
You have to have proof that something exists before you ask for proof that it doesn't.
#6 to #2 - ThatsSoFunnyHeHe
Reply +25
(12/30/2012) [-]
Because, you shouldn't have to prove that something doesn't exist.
You can't prove that the greek gods don't exist either, whats your point?

I'm not even atheist
#31 to #6 - odonnell
Reply -1
(12/30/2012) [-]
But if you can't prove that it doesn't exist then there's still the possibility of it being real.
Like Mythbusters, other than the fact they make tonnes of money from the show, they do it to prove Myths real of fake to gains a scientific answer to the situation.

Im not saying theres a magic man in the sky, thats been busted (By common sense, and the fact that there's telescopes looking into space 24/7, planes flying through the clouds etc)

But there could still be the spiritual side to it, something of a more powerful being that created the universe. Although evolution has been proved, and the big bang theory is logical, how did the big bang happen, if the big bang created everything then how did the hot dense state occur?

Tl;Dr: Magic men and women living in the sky has been disproved, but theres still lots to cover before the spiritual side of a God figure can be disproved. Things do need to be proven as inexistent, otherwise we'd still believe in Dragons and Unicorns (Even though they haven't been disproved, we just kind of moved on from not seeing them in Everyday life.)

#68 - callmeemm
Reply +24
(12/30/2012) [-]
I met a priest once who said that dinosaurs were real but they weren't allowed on Noahs ark.
#123 to #68 - scarydino
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
#73 to #68 - xxxdemongirl
Reply +2
(12/30/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#20 - Z A H A
Reply +19
(12/30/2012) [-]
#67 to #20 - destroyerofcunt
Reply -1
(12/30/2012) [-]
i like crapes....
i like crapes....
#36 to #20 - zsabber
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
waffle pancakes?
#53 to #20 - thewickedgoose
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
waffles are way better than ******* pancakes. i mean, look at em, they are all like, **** you guys im a waffle. ****.
#63 to #20 - marymjc
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Pancakes are obviously superior to waffles.The texture, the smoothness, everything.
#75 to #20 - anon
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Waffles hold my syrup better...
#91 to #20 - defender
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
French Toast *************
#121 to #20 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
This image has expired
I prefer waffles. Mainly because cockwaffle, but also because they are more rigid and can be used in the construction of a sandwich when bread is unavailable.
#25 to #20 - verby
Reply +2
(12/30/2012) [-]
Pancakes are superior to waffles in pretty much every way imaginable. No debate necessary
#27 to #25 - farmermcguffen
Reply +3
(12/30/2012) [-]
I'm sorry what did you say, you clearly do not have an argument with waffles obviously being the master race of breakfast food
#28 to #27 - verby
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
**** that bitch. I cant even properly butter my waffles due to the retard ******* holes in them. With a pancake, your **** melts and spreads evenly over the surface of the whole damn cake.
#29 to #28 - farmermcguffen
Reply +4
(12/30/2012) [-]
your flat bitch pancakes are no match to the syrup reservoir technology the waffle holes present
your flat bitch pancakes are no match to the syrup reservoir technology the waffle holes present
#32 to #29 - verby
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
Umm exscuse me they are not flat, they feature a super advanced slope that allows the syrup to fall down the sides, all you need to do to cover the whole pancake is put a little syrup on top and watch it flow down the sides of the pancake
#34 to #32 - farmermcguffen
Reply +6
(12/30/2012) [-]
there is only one way to settle this, I present to you, WAFFLECAKES
#35 to #34 - verby
Reply +4
(12/30/2012) [-]
It's beautiful. but shouldn't they be called PANWAFFLES?
#79 to #29 - rytul
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
#38 to #20 - shortbusterrorist **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#47 to #38 - happypancake
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
That's what I thought he meant when he said when he said pancake. Forgot that practically everyone on this site is American.
Crepes are amazing. You a folder or a roller?
#48 to #47 - shortbusterrorist **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#65 to #20 - watthekilo
Reply +3
(12/30/2012) [-]
ALL HAIL FRENCH TOAST MASTER RACE
#26 to #20 - discord
Reply +13
(12/30/2012) [-]
what is there to debate on? its clear waffles are better than pancakes.
#46 to #26 - happypancake
Reply +5
(12/30/2012) [-]
Come here and say that to my face
#41 to #26 - bronynexgen
Reply +2
(12/30/2012) [-]
Pancakes are easier to cut, and come in all thicknesses! Your move "Lord of Chaos".
#85 to #41 - coolcalx
Reply +3
(12/30/2012) [-]
waffles hold the butter and syrup in little containers!
#158 to #85 - bronynexgen
Reply 0
(12/31/2012) [-]
Pancakes make the syrup and butter easier to spread around, thoroughly covering the entire meal, and not just the spots where it was dripped, causing those places to become soggy. And trust me, no one likes a soggy waffle, if you know what I mean.
Pancakes make the syrup and butter easier to spread around, thoroughly covering the entire meal, and not just the spots where it was dripped, causing those places to become soggy. And trust me, no one likes a soggy waffle, if you know what I mean.
#160 to #158 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(12/31/2012) [-]
who gets a waffle and doesn't eat it right away?
who gets a waffle and doesn't eat it right away?
#58 - funnyjunkelite
Reply +11
(12/30/2012) [-]
if god is so forgiving how come Godzilla attacked Tokyo and Atheistzilla didn't?

christians: 0
japan: 1
#72 to #58 - nengcaste **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#89 to #72 - bitchpleaseshutup
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
athiestzilla i summon you here
#164 to #89 - atheistzilla ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/31/2012) [-]
What the **** did you just ******* say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the **** out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my ******* words. You think you can get away with saying that **** to me over the Internet? Think again, ******. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're ******* dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little ****. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your ******* tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will **** fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're ******* dead, kiddo.
#80 to #72 - anon
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
this proves that god doesn't exist!!
wait...
funnyjunk.com/user/atheistzilla
#81 to #80 - nengcaste **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#163 to #81 - atheistzilla ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/31/2012) [-]
**** you i manifest!
#162 to #58 - atheistzilla ONLINE
Reply +1
(12/31/2012) [-]
i tried!
#98 to #58 - impaledsandwich
Reply +2
(12/30/2012) [-]
#1 - anon
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
that isn't being owned, evolution is still a theory mostly due to a lack of transition fossils. so whether or not you believe it is your choice.
#9 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
>Still a theory
>Doesn't know what theory means
#93 to #1 - defender
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
How I am when waiting for credible proof that god is real
How I am when waiting for credible proof that god is real
#33 to #1 - ningyoaijin ONLINE
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
Yeah, **** you and **** your stupidity.
#149 to #33 - thelastprothean
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Scintillating. Thank you for that well constructed argument.
#22 to #1 - semisane
Reply +8
(12/30/2012) [-]
theory
#30 to #22 - thelastprothean
Reply -5
(12/30/2012) [-]
I don't think YOU know what theory means. There are no true laws of anything simply because to claim something is a law, means you need to be able to prove something an infinite amount of times. Can you prove evolution infinite times over?
#40 to #30 - semisane
Reply +5
(12/30/2012) [-]
#60 to #40 - thelastprothean
Reply -1
(12/30/2012) [-]
Please, explain to me how I am wrong.
#86 to #60 - coolcalx
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
astrophysics student here.

you misunderstand the definition of a scientific law, a scientific theory, and a hypothesis.

a law describes something
a theory explains something

that's the only difference between the two.

both have the same level of scientific authority, and neither is "absolutely true."
both a law and a theory can be wrong in light of counter evidence

a hypothesis is equivalent to the colloquial term "theory." you could call a hypothesis a "working theory," because it's undergoing testing. once a hypothesis has been shown to be true (as far as we can tell), and is accepted by the scientific community, it either becomes a law or a theory, based on its purpose. if the hypothesis explains something, it's called a theory. if the hypothesis describes something, it's called a law.
#148 to #86 - thelastprothean
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Ah. Well thank you for clarifying. Enjoy this gif.
Ah. Well thank you for clarifying. Enjoy this gif.
#150 to #148 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
whoa. someone being nice after being told they're wrong?   
   
this calls for an adorable kitten.
whoa. someone being nice after being told they're wrong?

this calls for an adorable kitten.
#152 to #150 - thelastprothean
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Well, I've got no problem with being wrong. It's when someone points it out like an ass.
#154 to #152 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
I don't even know you, but holy damn, you've gained my respect.
I don't even know you, but holy damn, you've gained my respect.
#69 to #30 - xxxdemongirl
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
To quote gammajk:

Scientific theory =/= commonly used definition of theory
A scientific theory is the result of people coming up with hypotheses, rigorously testing them, modifying it and advancing it when the data doesn't fit, and when there is substantial evidence to explain how a natural phenomena works, it gains the status of "theory".

Another thing you should note - "The Theory of Evolution" is our current understanding of the process. "Evolution" is the actual process itself. To challenge the theory is a good thing.... IF you actually have any reason to, as in contradictory evidence (and no, you aren't going to find any without a biology degree). But to challenge the FACT that the actual process occurs is just..... ******* retarded as all hell.
#52 to #30 - asasqw
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
It is an accepted theory as it is one of the many that is near if not impossible to prove/disprove but still works. Take for instance infinity; in order to disprove it you would need to find a number that is the largest. However to prove it you would need to count forever to show that there isn't a number that stops.
#92 to #52 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
um.. what? infinity is just a mathematical concept, not a scientific theory.

"infinity" exists due to our definition of numerical sets and mathematical axioms. in fact, due to our definitions of sets, there are actually multiple levels of infinity (i.e., some infinities are bigger than other infinities) which can be proven through mathematical proofs
#13 to #1 - tommythek
Reply +10
(12/30/2012) [-]
#43 - anon
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
But evolution is just a theory, there is no proof that we evolved from monkeys.
#44 to #43 - torkildsen
-1
has deleted their comment [-]
#55 to #43 - gammajk
Reply +3
(12/30/2012) [-]
Scientific theory =/= commonly used definition of theory
A scientific theory is the result of people coming up with hypotheses, rigorously testing them, modifying it and advancing it when the data doesn't fit, and when there is substantial evidence to explain how a natural phenomena works, it gains the status of "theory".

Another thing you should note - "The Theory of Evolution" is our current understanding of the process. "Evolution" is the actual process itself. To challenge the theory is a good thing.... IF you actually have any reason to, as in contradictory evidence (and no, you aren't going to find any without a biology degree). But to challenge the FACT that the actual process occurs is just..... ******* retarded as all hell.
#87 to #43 - coolcalx
Reply +5
(12/30/2012) [-]
that's because we didn't. no intelligent person has ever claimed that we came from monkeys. humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago.
#49 to #43 - asasqw
Reply +8
(12/30/2012) [-]
It is not that we evolved from monkeys as everyone agents evolution says. It says that both humans and monkeys came from the same common ancestor. The ones that evolved into monkeys stayed in trees while the ones that evolved into humans eventually came to the ground.
It is not that we evolved from monkeys as everyone agents evolution says. It says that both humans and monkeys came from the same common ancestor. The ones that evolved into monkeys stayed in trees while the ones that evolved into humans eventually came to the ground.
#42 - bronynexgen
Reply +8
(12/30/2012) [-]
Hey guys, how about Buddhism. The Dalai Lama said himself, that if science disproves a fundamental part of Buddhism, then it is Buddhism that must change, not science.
He sounds like a pretty cool guy.
#78 to #42 - nengcaste **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#159 to #78 - bronynexgen
Reply 0
(12/31/2012) [-]
Yet few, if any, wars were ever fought over Buddhism, that makes it a religion that practiced what it preached, unlike Christianity (the whole Crusades thing). In a whole, the Dalai Lama is a better man than the pope, who (Lama) is even studying neuroscience and astronomy, on top of leading a religion, to better understand the universe and the human mind. The pope may accept that, but he never took those practices to greaten his knowledge of the universe, and instead, reads from a 1500 year old book, translated and retranslated, and lost, and found again. With pieces added, and taken out by various monarchs over the years.

tl;dr Dalai Lama learns about science, Pope does not. No wars fought over Buddhism, Many, many, many wars fought over Christianity.
#62 - felixjarl ONLINE
Reply +6
(12/30/2012) [-]
This image has expired
#11 - gildemoono
Reply +6
(12/30/2012) [-]
a lot of christians like myself actually do believe in evolution in some format and even the pope himself says that it is impossible for us humans to perfectly interpret the Bible and the reality or possibility of evolution and even alien life could be lost in this misinterpretation or simply be omitted to make life more of an adventure for the rest of us. and with that, im out. dont want to be a part of this *********
#16 to #11 - Sonos
Reply -1
(12/30/2012) [-]
he really said that?

thats pretty cool
#66 to #16 - xxxdemongirl
Reply 0
(12/30/2012) [-]
Then he said that homosexuality is the thing that is the biggest threat to world peace.

Coolness status: Eliminated
#83 - firecrotchq
Reply +2
(12/30/2012) [-]
Well it doesn't hurt to believe in God.
#97 to #83 - StrayBullet
Reply +5
(12/30/2012) [-]
Yes, but to deny science...
#100 to #97 - firecrotchq
Reply +3
(12/30/2012) [-]
I believe in both, if that's possible.
#101 to #100 - StrayBullet
Reply +4
(12/30/2012) [-]
It is. Good on you.
#114 to #101 - thegingermancan
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
dear diary,   
   
today i found some reasonable people on the internet
dear diary,

today i found some reasonable people on the internet
#120 to #100 - shadowmageXD
Reply +1
(12/30/2012) [-]
Same here.