Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

zenrath    

Rank #33060 on Comments
no avatar Level 208 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to zenrath Block zenrath Invite zenrath to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:3/20/2011
Last Login:11/22/2014
Location:Australia
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#33060
Highest Content Rank:#20501
Highest Comment Rank:#2991
Content Thumbs: 33 total,  43 ,  10
Comment Thumbs: 1174 total,  1760 ,  586
Content Level Progress: 62.71% (37/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 208 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 209 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:1550
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:461
FJ Points:1124

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 955
    Thumbs Up 12 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +12
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 03/20/11
    Cleverbot FTW 2.0 Cleverbot FTW 2.0
  • Views: 1339
    Thumbs Up 14 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +11
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/14/12
    4Junk 4Junk
  • Views: 918
    Thumbs Up 11 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +8
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 03/22/11
    You are inglip You are inglip
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#8 - His dad's name is Tami? Probably an even bigger disap… 14 hours ago on Oh mom!! +2
#106 - Yeah, good work quoting things and assigning your own views on… 09/28/2014 on the battle has ended 0
#104 - Of course a global flood pre-dates the bible, thats just logic…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/27/2014 on the battle has ended 0
User avatar #105 - vladhellsing (09/27/2014) [-]
"I bet i could i could out-science you guys, from a religious believer standpoint"
"you a born believing there is a God/creator"
"Then you grow up, and you start hating God because of personal things"

Then you have the gall to say "Im not trying to say whats right or wrong(...)i wont call it"? Well way to cover your tracks, but the internet doesn't forget things so easily.

Who says I believe everything scientists have to say? I don't even understand most of quantum mechanics and think anyone who talks about the multiverse theory is doing so out of their arse. However, I understand how evolution works, seen the evidence backing the theory and seen the utilitarian application of the knowledge. Scientists have made mistakes in the past and have corrected their errors in light of new evidence. That's the good thing about science; it's a self-correcting procedure.

As for ancient drawings of dinosaurs, I've seen ancient cave paintings & depictions of all manner of creatures. And you know what's interesting to note? All drawings of 'dinosaurs' are usually nothing more than very crude silhouettes with little to no detail, whereas depictions of deer, mammoths, leopards, sabre-tooth cats and other creatures known to have existed around the time are remarkably detailed, down to the fur & detail of the eyes. Some may even be considered photorealistic. But using art as evidence from any time period is hazy at best. You know what else we have ancient depictions of? Dragons, chimeras, nagas, basilisks, angels, demons, gods and all manner of monsters. Are we going to believe they all existed as well? That's like using photos of modern people in elaborate makeup and saying "Haha, lizard people exist! Look, we even have photos of them!"
#106 - zenrath (09/28/2014) [-]
Yeah, good work quoting things and assigning your own views on what somebody else has said. I stated i wouldnt call whats right or wrong, that doesnt contradict that fact i believe i could throw down the same, if not more, knowledge on the topic.

All i hear about believing in evolution is that fact that everybody believes it and thats supposed to be the end all of all arguments. I believe it, because he believes it. Awesome.

Ancient drawings of dinosaurs being hazy? really? read over what you wrote, you provided nothing but self-created opinions. Egypt depicts dinosaurs, Babylon clearly has carvings of a lion and a dinosaur all throughout their brick structures, how about the cambodian dinosaur? Heres a link refuting it, ( www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/stegosaurus-rhinoceros-or-hoax-40387948/?no-ist ) i dont mind posting that link at all, i try to disprove something before i talk about it, the article refuting it is clearly trying to divert as much attention off it as possible, even starting the article out with evolutionary theory to install confidence to the masses, that this piece is scientifically accurate, despite it all being fluff.
I dont disagree that theres probably mythical things depicted too, but the dinosaurs are generally damn accurate to our fossils. Things get distorted, sure. Theres probably things we never new existed, dont be so arrogant to think we got it all figured out. I firmly believe dragons and dinosaurs are one and the same reference, historically, the word was coined in 1841, before that, probably referenced as dragons, all throughout different cultures, and then eventually distorted by myth and legends, hell the english flag honours st george killing a dragon/dinosaur, you'd think that would need some sort of truth. "Oh fuck, no it was just a really scary bear" yeah, lets keep shitting on the dead people and making fun of their intelligence because we're so arrogant and brainwashed.
#59 - So you tell me my degree has no authority, from what authority…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/22/2014 on the battle has ended -2
User avatar #61 - vladhellsing (09/22/2014) [-]
Why focus on the flood? If there was indeed a global flood (which would've deposited marine fossils all over the world that nobody's found yet, not to mention the biodiversity we have now wouldn't be possible if the supposed flood happened only a few thousand years ago) it doesn't prove that a god exists. It's actually a pretty poor argument in favour of Christianity in particular, because the flood myth in the bible is a derivative of earlier flood myths from Babylonian, Egyptian & Mesopotamian myths that all pre-date the bible. I know this because I'm actually studying ancient myth at university right now, this isn't from some Google "top 10 atheist arguments" search. I've heard all the arguments put forth by Christians on how a flood could've supposedly occurred (water beneath the mantle, ice comets, melting ice caps, etc) and none of them hold up scientifically without some bullshit deus ex machina defying the laws of physics.

What you're describing is micro-evolution, which has indeed been observed in laboratories several times as you've noted. But micro & macro evolution are the exact same mechanics, the only difference is time. Evolution has also been observed on organisms bigger than bacteria though, including insects, lizards and I read a case study last year on the changing morphology & behaviour of foxes for Odin's sake! Of course it takes a long time to observe more dramatic evolutionary changes in more complex organisms (such as primates) but we still have evidence of common ancestry through DNA backed up by the fossil record.

Which is all irrelevant when it comes to the question of a god existing. Even if - and that's a fucking big 'if' I'm putting there - you somehow disprove evolution (finding a rabbit fossil alongside a T-rex in the same sedimentary layer ought to do it) you still don't have a single shred of proof that a god exists. Whenever I ask for proof of a deity, theists just go straight back to attacking evolution.
#104 - zenrath (09/27/2014) [-]
Of course a global flood pre-dates the bible, thats just logical. Its something that has been passed down, generation to generation from each culture, christian or otherwise, all because the christian/jews had a record of it, doesnt mean they came up with it.

Im not arguing that things adapt and change and mutations occurs, its the end interpretation of that data that id argue on.
+ If you dont want to do real scientific work, you'd go for evolution science funding, its all up for interpretation and at the end of day, nobody is trying to disprove it, and even if they found conflicting results, nobody would risk their funding to go against it, they'd merely brush over it. E.g. The study which said we as humans will soon not have a Y chromosome because some select species have changed their sex determination method, and so will humans. Pretty shitty connections, interpretations and study to be honest.

As for Dinosaurs and rabbits, theres so much shit to show that our interpretation of dinosaurs and time has been so broken, all because you havent actively tried to find out doesnt mean the evidence doesnt exist. Hell Egypt drew them on their walls. If you think thats bullshit, what about the Baghdad Battery, thats bullshit too? Theres so much amazing shit out that that doesnt make sense, yet apparantly you've figured it all out.

The best way to prove a theory is to try and disprove it, i sure as shit havent seen anyone who isnt considered a religious manaic, to try and do that for evolution or anything similar. Yet everybody is so convinced.

This is the internet, and we both sound like arseholes, its unfortunate. This isnt about me being right or trying to convert somebody, im simply fed up with the way society just accepts shit on blind faith, then calls it scientific fact and become completely ignorant to themselves.

Im not trying to say whats right or wrong, im just saying what we currently believe is bullshit. The correct thing to believe? i wont call it
User avatar #105 - vladhellsing (09/27/2014) [-]
"I bet i could i could out-science you guys, from a religious believer standpoint"
"you a born believing there is a God/creator"
"Then you grow up, and you start hating God because of personal things"

Then you have the gall to say "Im not trying to say whats right or wrong(...)i wont call it"? Well way to cover your tracks, but the internet doesn't forget things so easily.

Who says I believe everything scientists have to say? I don't even understand most of quantum mechanics and think anyone who talks about the multiverse theory is doing so out of their arse. However, I understand how evolution works, seen the evidence backing the theory and seen the utilitarian application of the knowledge. Scientists have made mistakes in the past and have corrected their errors in light of new evidence. That's the good thing about science; it's a self-correcting procedure.

As for ancient drawings of dinosaurs, I've seen ancient cave paintings & depictions of all manner of creatures. And you know what's interesting to note? All drawings of 'dinosaurs' are usually nothing more than very crude silhouettes with little to no detail, whereas depictions of deer, mammoths, leopards, sabre-tooth cats and other creatures known to have existed around the time are remarkably detailed, down to the fur & detail of the eyes. Some may even be considered photorealistic. But using art as evidence from any time period is hazy at best. You know what else we have ancient depictions of? Dragons, chimeras, nagas, basilisks, angels, demons, gods and all manner of monsters. Are we going to believe they all existed as well? That's like using photos of modern people in elaborate makeup and saying "Haha, lizard people exist! Look, we even have photos of them!"
#106 - zenrath (09/28/2014) [-]
Yeah, good work quoting things and assigning your own views on what somebody else has said. I stated i wouldnt call whats right or wrong, that doesnt contradict that fact i believe i could throw down the same, if not more, knowledge on the topic.

All i hear about believing in evolution is that fact that everybody believes it and thats supposed to be the end all of all arguments. I believe it, because he believes it. Awesome.

Ancient drawings of dinosaurs being hazy? really? read over what you wrote, you provided nothing but self-created opinions. Egypt depicts dinosaurs, Babylon clearly has carvings of a lion and a dinosaur all throughout their brick structures, how about the cambodian dinosaur? Heres a link refuting it, ( www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/stegosaurus-rhinoceros-or-hoax-40387948/?no-ist ) i dont mind posting that link at all, i try to disprove something before i talk about it, the article refuting it is clearly trying to divert as much attention off it as possible, even starting the article out with evolutionary theory to install confidence to the masses, that this piece is scientifically accurate, despite it all being fluff.
I dont disagree that theres probably mythical things depicted too, but the dinosaurs are generally damn accurate to our fossils. Things get distorted, sure. Theres probably things we never new existed, dont be so arrogant to think we got it all figured out. I firmly believe dragons and dinosaurs are one and the same reference, historically, the word was coined in 1841, before that, probably referenced as dragons, all throughout different cultures, and then eventually distorted by myth and legends, hell the english flag honours st george killing a dragon/dinosaur, you'd think that would need some sort of truth. "Oh fuck, no it was just a really scary bear" yeah, lets keep shitting on the dead people and making fun of their intelligence because we're so arrogant and brainwashed.
#53 - Yeah, instead of actually being interested and insightful you …  [+] (6 new replies) 09/22/2014 on the battle has ended 0
User avatar #54 - vladhellsing (09/22/2014) [-]
Oh for fuck's sake, how can I be upset with something I don't even believe exists? That's like trying to send death threats to Santa Clause. And which god am I upset with exactly? I personally detest the god represented in the bible (after I read the fucking thing cover to cover) while I approve of certain other gods spread across mythology and wouldn't mind having a good conversation with. My approval of a deity's character in no way influences whether or not I believe they exist. You honestly can't hold a degree and be this fucking stupid. Unless it's a fake degree, in which case shame on you.

There is no million dollar reward for proving evolution, because it's already been proved and accepted as fact by the vast majority of the scientific community. It's only the odd Creationist who still debate its validity, in spite of all the evidence (fossil record, DNA evidence, observable experiments done in labs, etc).

The fact that you have a degree is completely irrelevant, you're trying to make an argument from authority. And having a degree in 'medical science' makes you no expert on evolution or cosmology.

As for me being "born with wonder and amazement of creation in this world, you a born believing there is a God/creator", that's utter bullshit. I attribute my former belief in a deity to my parents telling me there was one when I was too young & stupid to know any better. It was only when I got older and began researching things for myself that I was able to cast off the ridiculous notion in favour of a more realistic view of the world.

Now take your pot-hattery elsewhere.
#59 - zenrath (09/22/2014) [-]
So you tell me my degree has no authority, from what authority?
,now like i said, it doesnt mean im right, it just means than rather than blathering about opinionated facts, i can actually hold a conversation and not say shit like "OH ITS BEEN PROVEN", or "NO, SOME DUDE TOLD ME OTHERWISE" or "I GOOGLED IT", i can actually say shit like "The genetic evolution shown by bacteria and micro-organisms is one of the few good examples of evolution which we can actually observe in our life time" but then with a degree i can formulate a rebuttal better than your typical athiest "top 10 reasons why evolution is fact" google search, such as, "Genetic cassettes are the primary reason for anti-bacterial immunity, they function more as a mechanism than proof of evolution"

Shit, science tries so hard to never mention a global flood because creationists would have a field day. If i could prove a global flood happend, would you become less angsty? or just pawn it off as some sort of trick? Seriously, ask yourself why you would pawn it off so quickly, just take a breath and think about why youre so programmed to immediately trigger anger and outrage at this potential information, its bias, and where does this bias come from? not evolution logic, because im providing potentially a 1:1 fact ratio here if it was science vs science or science vs religion, however you wanna see it, the proper response would be intrigue.

Lets just play with the flood for a second then. Some gold points.
Smart christians believe the flood occured from beneath a layer of the earths crust, we've just discoved theres water beneath (woot science caught up).
Secondly, melt the caps, you flood the earth, not so ridiculous, right?
Thirdly, How'd we get fossil fuels? Mass animal graveyards, all seeking higher ground?
Fourth, fossiled jellyfish, fossilied fish giving birth (insane circumstances)
Fifth, Mt Everest has clams and shells on the top of it.

5 quick trvia facts, not enough characters to write more.
User avatar #61 - vladhellsing (09/22/2014) [-]
Why focus on the flood? If there was indeed a global flood (which would've deposited marine fossils all over the world that nobody's found yet, not to mention the biodiversity we have now wouldn't be possible if the supposed flood happened only a few thousand years ago) it doesn't prove that a god exists. It's actually a pretty poor argument in favour of Christianity in particular, because the flood myth in the bible is a derivative of earlier flood myths from Babylonian, Egyptian & Mesopotamian myths that all pre-date the bible. I know this because I'm actually studying ancient myth at university right now, this isn't from some Google "top 10 atheist arguments" search. I've heard all the arguments put forth by Christians on how a flood could've supposedly occurred (water beneath the mantle, ice comets, melting ice caps, etc) and none of them hold up scientifically without some bullshit deus ex machina defying the laws of physics.

What you're describing is micro-evolution, which has indeed been observed in laboratories several times as you've noted. But micro & macro evolution are the exact same mechanics, the only difference is time. Evolution has also been observed on organisms bigger than bacteria though, including insects, lizards and I read a case study last year on the changing morphology & behaviour of foxes for Odin's sake! Of course it takes a long time to observe more dramatic evolutionary changes in more complex organisms (such as primates) but we still have evidence of common ancestry through DNA backed up by the fossil record.

Which is all irrelevant when it comes to the question of a god existing. Even if - and that's a fucking big 'if' I'm putting there - you somehow disprove evolution (finding a rabbit fossil alongside a T-rex in the same sedimentary layer ought to do it) you still don't have a single shred of proof that a god exists. Whenever I ask for proof of a deity, theists just go straight back to attacking evolution.
#104 - zenrath (09/27/2014) [-]
Of course a global flood pre-dates the bible, thats just logical. Its something that has been passed down, generation to generation from each culture, christian or otherwise, all because the christian/jews had a record of it, doesnt mean they came up with it.

Im not arguing that things adapt and change and mutations occurs, its the end interpretation of that data that id argue on.
+ If you dont want to do real scientific work, you'd go for evolution science funding, its all up for interpretation and at the end of day, nobody is trying to disprove it, and even if they found conflicting results, nobody would risk their funding to go against it, they'd merely brush over it. E.g. The study which said we as humans will soon not have a Y chromosome because some select species have changed their sex determination method, and so will humans. Pretty shitty connections, interpretations and study to be honest.

As for Dinosaurs and rabbits, theres so much shit to show that our interpretation of dinosaurs and time has been so broken, all because you havent actively tried to find out doesnt mean the evidence doesnt exist. Hell Egypt drew them on their walls. If you think thats bullshit, what about the Baghdad Battery, thats bullshit too? Theres so much amazing shit out that that doesnt make sense, yet apparantly you've figured it all out.

The best way to prove a theory is to try and disprove it, i sure as shit havent seen anyone who isnt considered a religious manaic, to try and do that for evolution or anything similar. Yet everybody is so convinced.

This is the internet, and we both sound like arseholes, its unfortunate. This isnt about me being right or trying to convert somebody, im simply fed up with the way society just accepts shit on blind faith, then calls it scientific fact and become completely ignorant to themselves.

Im not trying to say whats right or wrong, im just saying what we currently believe is bullshit. The correct thing to believe? i wont call it
User avatar #105 - vladhellsing (09/27/2014) [-]
"I bet i could i could out-science you guys, from a religious believer standpoint"
"you a born believing there is a God/creator"
"Then you grow up, and you start hating God because of personal things"

Then you have the gall to say "Im not trying to say whats right or wrong(...)i wont call it"? Well way to cover your tracks, but the internet doesn't forget things so easily.

Who says I believe everything scientists have to say? I don't even understand most of quantum mechanics and think anyone who talks about the multiverse theory is doing so out of their arse. However, I understand how evolution works, seen the evidence backing the theory and seen the utilitarian application of the knowledge. Scientists have made mistakes in the past and have corrected their errors in light of new evidence. That's the good thing about science; it's a self-correcting procedure.

As for ancient drawings of dinosaurs, I've seen ancient cave paintings & depictions of all manner of creatures. And you know what's interesting to note? All drawings of 'dinosaurs' are usually nothing more than very crude silhouettes with little to no detail, whereas depictions of deer, mammoths, leopards, sabre-tooth cats and other creatures known to have existed around the time are remarkably detailed, down to the fur & detail of the eyes. Some may even be considered photorealistic. But using art as evidence from any time period is hazy at best. You know what else we have ancient depictions of? Dragons, chimeras, nagas, basilisks, angels, demons, gods and all manner of monsters. Are we going to believe they all existed as well? That's like using photos of modern people in elaborate makeup and saying "Haha, lizard people exist! Look, we even have photos of them!"
#106 - zenrath (09/28/2014) [-]
Yeah, good work quoting things and assigning your own views on what somebody else has said. I stated i wouldnt call whats right or wrong, that doesnt contradict that fact i believe i could throw down the same, if not more, knowledge on the topic.

All i hear about believing in evolution is that fact that everybody believes it and thats supposed to be the end all of all arguments. I believe it, because he believes it. Awesome.

Ancient drawings of dinosaurs being hazy? really? read over what you wrote, you provided nothing but self-created opinions. Egypt depicts dinosaurs, Babylon clearly has carvings of a lion and a dinosaur all throughout their brick structures, how about the cambodian dinosaur? Heres a link refuting it, ( www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/stegosaurus-rhinoceros-or-hoax-40387948/?no-ist ) i dont mind posting that link at all, i try to disprove something before i talk about it, the article refuting it is clearly trying to divert as much attention off it as possible, even starting the article out with evolutionary theory to install confidence to the masses, that this piece is scientifically accurate, despite it all being fluff.
I dont disagree that theres probably mythical things depicted too, but the dinosaurs are generally damn accurate to our fossils. Things get distorted, sure. Theres probably things we never new existed, dont be so arrogant to think we got it all figured out. I firmly believe dragons and dinosaurs are one and the same reference, historically, the word was coined in 1841, before that, probably referenced as dragons, all throughout different cultures, and then eventually distorted by myth and legends, hell the english flag honours st george killing a dragon/dinosaur, you'd think that would need some sort of truth. "Oh fuck, no it was just a really scary bear" yeah, lets keep shitting on the dead people and making fun of their intelligence because we're so arrogant and brainwashed.
#50 - To Reply to all these comments. 1. I bet i could i co…  [+] (9 new replies) 09/22/2014 on the battle has ended -4
#77 - thisonewins (09/22/2014) [-]
1: "I bet i could i could out-science you guys"

2: "you a born believing there is a God/creator"

Note: not a comment on grammar, but content
#52 - vladhellsing (09/22/2014) [-]
Nice try, idiot.
#53 - zenrath (09/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, instead of actually being interested and insightful you just build up angst and pawn me off. You're not using logic, just upset with God and pretending you've got some significant intelligence.

Theres a million dollar reward to anyone who can prove evolution, go claim it then smart ass.

I can take a photo of my degree if you think im a troll.
User avatar #54 - vladhellsing (09/22/2014) [-]
Oh for fuck's sake, how can I be upset with something I don't even believe exists? That's like trying to send death threats to Santa Clause. And which god am I upset with exactly? I personally detest the god represented in the bible (after I read the fucking thing cover to cover) while I approve of certain other gods spread across mythology and wouldn't mind having a good conversation with. My approval of a deity's character in no way influences whether or not I believe they exist. You honestly can't hold a degree and be this fucking stupid. Unless it's a fake degree, in which case shame on you.

There is no million dollar reward for proving evolution, because it's already been proved and accepted as fact by the vast majority of the scientific community. It's only the odd Creationist who still debate its validity, in spite of all the evidence (fossil record, DNA evidence, observable experiments done in labs, etc).

The fact that you have a degree is completely irrelevant, you're trying to make an argument from authority. And having a degree in 'medical science' makes you no expert on evolution or cosmology.

As for me being "born with wonder and amazement of creation in this world, you a born believing there is a God/creator", that's utter bullshit. I attribute my former belief in a deity to my parents telling me there was one when I was too young & stupid to know any better. It was only when I got older and began researching things for myself that I was able to cast off the ridiculous notion in favour of a more realistic view of the world.

Now take your pot-hattery elsewhere.
#59 - zenrath (09/22/2014) [-]
So you tell me my degree has no authority, from what authority?
,now like i said, it doesnt mean im right, it just means than rather than blathering about opinionated facts, i can actually hold a conversation and not say shit like "OH ITS BEEN PROVEN", or "NO, SOME DUDE TOLD ME OTHERWISE" or "I GOOGLED IT", i can actually say shit like "The genetic evolution shown by bacteria and micro-organisms is one of the few good examples of evolution which we can actually observe in our life time" but then with a degree i can formulate a rebuttal better than your typical athiest "top 10 reasons why evolution is fact" google search, such as, "Genetic cassettes are the primary reason for anti-bacterial immunity, they function more as a mechanism than proof of evolution"

Shit, science tries so hard to never mention a global flood because creationists would have a field day. If i could prove a global flood happend, would you become less angsty? or just pawn it off as some sort of trick? Seriously, ask yourself why you would pawn it off so quickly, just take a breath and think about why youre so programmed to immediately trigger anger and outrage at this potential information, its bias, and where does this bias come from? not evolution logic, because im providing potentially a 1:1 fact ratio here if it was science vs science or science vs religion, however you wanna see it, the proper response would be intrigue.

Lets just play with the flood for a second then. Some gold points.
Smart christians believe the flood occured from beneath a layer of the earths crust, we've just discoved theres water beneath (woot science caught up).
Secondly, melt the caps, you flood the earth, not so ridiculous, right?
Thirdly, How'd we get fossil fuels? Mass animal graveyards, all seeking higher ground?
Fourth, fossiled jellyfish, fossilied fish giving birth (insane circumstances)
Fifth, Mt Everest has clams and shells on the top of it.

5 quick trvia facts, not enough characters to write more.
User avatar #61 - vladhellsing (09/22/2014) [-]
Why focus on the flood? If there was indeed a global flood (which would've deposited marine fossils all over the world that nobody's found yet, not to mention the biodiversity we have now wouldn't be possible if the supposed flood happened only a few thousand years ago) it doesn't prove that a god exists. It's actually a pretty poor argument in favour of Christianity in particular, because the flood myth in the bible is a derivative of earlier flood myths from Babylonian, Egyptian & Mesopotamian myths that all pre-date the bible. I know this because I'm actually studying ancient myth at university right now, this isn't from some Google "top 10 atheist arguments" search. I've heard all the arguments put forth by Christians on how a flood could've supposedly occurred (water beneath the mantle, ice comets, melting ice caps, etc) and none of them hold up scientifically without some bullshit deus ex machina defying the laws of physics.

What you're describing is micro-evolution, which has indeed been observed in laboratories several times as you've noted. But micro & macro evolution are the exact same mechanics, the only difference is time. Evolution has also been observed on organisms bigger than bacteria though, including insects, lizards and I read a case study last year on the changing morphology & behaviour of foxes for Odin's sake! Of course it takes a long time to observe more dramatic evolutionary changes in more complex organisms (such as primates) but we still have evidence of common ancestry through DNA backed up by the fossil record.

Which is all irrelevant when it comes to the question of a god existing. Even if - and that's a fucking big 'if' I'm putting there - you somehow disprove evolution (finding a rabbit fossil alongside a T-rex in the same sedimentary layer ought to do it) you still don't have a single shred of proof that a god exists. Whenever I ask for proof of a deity, theists just go straight back to attacking evolution.
#104 - zenrath (09/27/2014) [-]
Of course a global flood pre-dates the bible, thats just logical. Its something that has been passed down, generation to generation from each culture, christian or otherwise, all because the christian/jews had a record of it, doesnt mean they came up with it.

Im not arguing that things adapt and change and mutations occurs, its the end interpretation of that data that id argue on.
+ If you dont want to do real scientific work, you'd go for evolution science funding, its all up for interpretation and at the end of day, nobody is trying to disprove it, and even if they found conflicting results, nobody would risk their funding to go against it, they'd merely brush over it. E.g. The study which said we as humans will soon not have a Y chromosome because some select species have changed their sex determination method, and so will humans. Pretty shitty connections, interpretations and study to be honest.

As for Dinosaurs and rabbits, theres so much shit to show that our interpretation of dinosaurs and time has been so broken, all because you havent actively tried to find out doesnt mean the evidence doesnt exist. Hell Egypt drew them on their walls. If you think thats bullshit, what about the Baghdad Battery, thats bullshit too? Theres so much amazing shit out that that doesnt make sense, yet apparantly you've figured it all out.

The best way to prove a theory is to try and disprove it, i sure as shit havent seen anyone who isnt considered a religious manaic, to try and do that for evolution or anything similar. Yet everybody is so convinced.

This is the internet, and we both sound like arseholes, its unfortunate. This isnt about me being right or trying to convert somebody, im simply fed up with the way society just accepts shit on blind faith, then calls it scientific fact and become completely ignorant to themselves.

Im not trying to say whats right or wrong, im just saying what we currently believe is bullshit. The correct thing to believe? i wont call it
User avatar #105 - vladhellsing (09/27/2014) [-]
"I bet i could i could out-science you guys, from a religious believer standpoint"
"you a born believing there is a God/creator"
"Then you grow up, and you start hating God because of personal things"

Then you have the gall to say "Im not trying to say whats right or wrong(...)i wont call it"? Well way to cover your tracks, but the internet doesn't forget things so easily.

Who says I believe everything scientists have to say? I don't even understand most of quantum mechanics and think anyone who talks about the multiverse theory is doing so out of their arse. However, I understand how evolution works, seen the evidence backing the theory and seen the utilitarian application of the knowledge. Scientists have made mistakes in the past and have corrected their errors in light of new evidence. That's the good thing about science; it's a self-correcting procedure.

As for ancient drawings of dinosaurs, I've seen ancient cave paintings & depictions of all manner of creatures. And you know what's interesting to note? All drawings of 'dinosaurs' are usually nothing more than very crude silhouettes with little to no detail, whereas depictions of deer, mammoths, leopards, sabre-tooth cats and other creatures known to have existed around the time are remarkably detailed, down to the fur & detail of the eyes. Some may even be considered photorealistic. But using art as evidence from any time period is hazy at best. You know what else we have ancient depictions of? Dragons, chimeras, nagas, basilisks, angels, demons, gods and all manner of monsters. Are we going to believe they all existed as well? That's like using photos of modern people in elaborate makeup and saying "Haha, lizard people exist! Look, we even have photos of them!"
#106 - zenrath (09/28/2014) [-]
Yeah, good work quoting things and assigning your own views on what somebody else has said. I stated i wouldnt call whats right or wrong, that doesnt contradict that fact i believe i could throw down the same, if not more, knowledge on the topic.

All i hear about believing in evolution is that fact that everybody believes it and thats supposed to be the end all of all arguments. I believe it, because he believes it. Awesome.

Ancient drawings of dinosaurs being hazy? really? read over what you wrote, you provided nothing but self-created opinions. Egypt depicts dinosaurs, Babylon clearly has carvings of a lion and a dinosaur all throughout their brick structures, how about the cambodian dinosaur? Heres a link refuting it, ( www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/stegosaurus-rhinoceros-or-hoax-40387948/?no-ist ) i dont mind posting that link at all, i try to disprove something before i talk about it, the article refuting it is clearly trying to divert as much attention off it as possible, even starting the article out with evolutionary theory to install confidence to the masses, that this piece is scientifically accurate, despite it all being fluff.
I dont disagree that theres probably mythical things depicted too, but the dinosaurs are generally damn accurate to our fossils. Things get distorted, sure. Theres probably things we never new existed, dont be so arrogant to think we got it all figured out. I firmly believe dragons and dinosaurs are one and the same reference, historically, the word was coined in 1841, before that, probably referenced as dragons, all throughout different cultures, and then eventually distorted by myth and legends, hell the english flag honours st george killing a dragon/dinosaur, you'd think that would need some sort of truth. "Oh fuck, no it was just a really scary bear" yeah, lets keep shitting on the dead people and making fun of their intelligence because we're so arrogant and brainwashed.
#17 - Thats awesome. The screaming chicks somehow make the …  [+] (4 new replies) 08/10/2014 on street performer kills it +52
User avatar #25 - scuhbeefluffly (08/10/2014) [-]
dumb white bitches
#101 - fragmaggot (08/10/2014) [-]
In my opinion i believe its nice the "white bitches" is cheering.. It kinda sucks playing infront of a audience who's dead silent and not showing a single emotion when playing. Having the chick cheer at him during certain parts is like a "holy fuck this sounds awesome". it makes the 1 doing the performance very happy.
User avatar #172 - kievaughnb (08/10/2014) [-]
It's good etiquette not to cheer until the end of the show so that everyone can hear everything.
#16 - Thats clearly australia. Where is he located? it loo…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/10/2014 on street performer kills it 0
User avatar #19 - SuperBobbis (08/10/2014) [-]
It's Adelaide, outside Rundle Mall.
www.facebook.com/pip3guy His facebook page.
www.youtube.com/channel/UCD6_Jz4Q7CXcojkcgBrW7IA And his YouTube channel.

God, I love seeing him on the odd occasion I got to the city.
#38 - The original next part of this song, pretty much needs little … 08/08/2014 on Putin the boot down. +3
#53 - or, i encountered a unique and rare bug, UNPLAYABLE! 4/10! 07/26/2014 on (untitled) 0

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)