Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#95 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#160 to #95 - Xyhpon
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
I don't know if the banana thing is a joke, but if it isn't then what the hell?
#164 to #160 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#169 to #164 - Xyhpon
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
That whole video is just... wut?
#124 to #95 - coolcalx
Reply -6
(05/15/2013) [-]
mfw creationism and evolution are not at odds
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
#128 to #124 - kanade **User deleted account**
+3
has deleted their comment [-]
#138 to #128 - coolcalx
Reply -4
(05/15/2013) [-]
Creationism is a belief for WHY things exist.
evolution is only a means for life to get from point A to point B, but why does this process take place? According to creationists, because God willed it to.

I'm not saying creationism is correct (I'm not even religious), but my point is that the chart is flawed in that it implies that creationism and evolution are contradictory theories, when in reality, they can coexist.
#150 to #138 - kanade **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#186 to #150 - coolcalx
Reply -1
(05/15/2013) [-]
"Science doesn't care about the why questions"
yes it does. that's why there is a differentiation between "theory" and "law."
theories explain, and laws describe.

"You don't need to know why life is here"
I don't need to know how either, but I'd like to know, and science DOES attempt to answer that question.
#188 to #186 - kanade **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#189 to #188 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
>subjectivity
gravitational theory explains how and why gravity works.
#195 to #189 - pureenergyy
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but you're wrong. When you consider it, we have answered how but not why.

If you can give me one good reason why gravity works then please do. I hate being wrong xD
#196 to #195 - coolcalx
Reply -2
(05/15/2013) [-]
we don't know. gravity is the least understood force in the universe
#194 to #189 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#168 to #150 - pureenergyy
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
The **** you think water comes from *****
#170 to #168 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#177 to #170 - pureenergyy
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
http://www.articlesbase.com/nature-articles/do-we-need-mountains-103124.html
#176 to #170 - pureenergyy
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
Yes but if it wasn't for mountains it wouldn't be fresh by the time it hit the ground, Hence "why" it is there. My point is it has been questioned "why" so your argument is flawed.
#185 to #176 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#193 to #185 - pureenergyy
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
You know what. I agree. I guess I was getting confused at "how" and "why" are fairly similar questions and both essentially ask the same question but it's the conclusion of the question that differs like "how did this mountain make water?" or "why did this mountain make water?". Essentially you look at the same thing to answer it. But the how's would say this is how. But the why's would never truly answer their question because we don't know why. Sorry I was so quick to jump at that
#154 to #150 - coolcalx
Reply -4
(05/15/2013) [-]
I didn't say it implicitly said they were contradictory. I said it was implied, and it is.
#161 to #154 - kanade **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#167 to #161 - coolcalx
Reply -5
(05/15/2013) [-]
"Evolution VS Creationism"
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/versus

by definition, this implies that they are at odds.
#172 to #167 - kanade **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#178 to #172 - coolcalx
Reply -4
(05/15/2013) [-]
you should read the wiki article, because every bit of that is completely wrong. creationism does NOT imply 'perfect' intelligent design. that's ridiculous.

" A god wouldn't create an imperfect world and use such a cruel method of darwinian selection."
You know how a hypothetical deity would create things? wow, that's crazy. /s
also, natural selection is not the only method of evolution.

"And second of all my chart compared the EVIDENCE of creation vs evolution, the two themself are not at odds, but the evidence is."
so now they AREN'T at odds, even though you JUST said that they are? get your **** straight.
if you're comparing the EVIDENCE, then change the title, because the title does not imply that.
#181 to #178 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#184 to #181 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
you'd have to study theology to answer your first question.

"there is good reason to see why creation would make no sense with evolution."
theistic evolution is nothing more than "evolution is true, and God initiated it."
that makes perfect sense from a religious perspective, and it doesn't deny scientific evidence. you don't know what you're talking about.

"without natural selection evolution couldn't happen."
without ANY part of evolution, evolution couldn't happen. that's a completely moot point.

"Anyone who can read clearly sees i'm comparing the evidence, if you just base a picture on the title alone then you're just a retard."
now we're doing name calling? boy, this became childish quickly.
#187 to #184 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#192 to #187 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
"if you can't answer me then i have no reason to take creation and evolution together serious."
I already told you that I'm not religious, so I have no authority to explain theology to you. I've already provided you the means to learn for yourself, yet you refuse to do so.
#190 to #187 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
"Theology is not a real subject"
boy you're edgy. you probably think Jesus was a fictional person too, huh?
theology: the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths
that is a real subject, whether you like it or not.

except they CAN work together, as I've already shown you MULTIPLE times. I've never said they HAVE to work together, but you are lying when you say that they can't work together.

natural selection is not the only method of evolution. there are multiple mechanisms.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms
#197 to #190 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#200 to #197 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
"concepts of God"
did you miss this part? theology doesn't require the presupposition that a deity exists.

"OFCOURSE THEY CAN WORK TOGTHER I JUST SAID SO IN MY PREVIOUS ******* COMMENTS."
did you? let's check.
"there is a good reason why you don't have to accept them together and why they can't work together."
>"they can't work together."
nope. you didn't.

no, they are separate mechanisms.
#201 to #200 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#203 to #201 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
that's not out of context. you said that that it doesn't change the "FACT" that there is good reason they can't work together. you of course did not provide any evidence for this, but you did state that it was a fact. like, verbatim.

they all work together like cogs in a machine, that DOESN'T mean there's only one gear. they are separate mechanisms that require each other to work.
#214 to #203 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#216 to #214 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
genetic drift only occurs when selection processes are minimal
#217 to #216 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#205 to #203 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#219 to #205 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
"How the hell do you even think genetic drift can take place if the animal ******* dies?"
I never even said that. the **** are you talking about? an organism doesn't DIE if it doesn't have any form of selection mutation.

"Animals still have to survive for genetic drift to occur, it's more likely to happen with animals better adapted to nature therefor it's still dependant on natural selection."
lol no. that's not how natural selection works.
#220 to #219 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#213 to #205 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
genetic drift exists regardless of neutral theory, and again, it is independent of natural selection.
#215 to #213 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#211 to #205 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
I can't reply to your last comment so I'll do it here.

I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied evolution. just as an example, genetic drift acts independently from natural selection.

here is something you can read about
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

so no, you are wrong.
#212 to #211 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#206 to #205 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
natural selection is ONE mechanism that works alongside all the others. seriously, read the wiki article.
#210 to #206 - kanade **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#97 to #95 - anon
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
im sorry, but what the **** does a court have to do with anything scientific?
#104 to #97 - anon
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
Scopes v. Tennessee.
#99 to #97 - kanade **User deleted account**
+4
has deleted their comment [-]
#291 to #99 - KINGOFTHESTARS
Reply 0
(05/16/2013) [-]
you blocked me? what you got your ass kicked too bad?

unblock me so I can see your comments, whitename....

go look back at all my comments
my 15 year old trolling days to now!
all you have done on this post is spread atheistic cancer...

*****, you gay
#122 to #99 - anon
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
the frustration that people are using the legal system to force science to reflect their ideals has left me at a loss for words
#125 to #122 - anon
Reply 0
(05/15/2013) [-]
just to clarify im angry at the guy who wasnt peer-reviewed not the actual scientists