/sci/ - Science & Math

Stopped reading at first frame. You don't believe' in evolution, you either accept its facts or not.

>modern man
>this genius thinks we came from a monkey

this is not what happens, there are laws to stop it and most people would welcome a chance to debate someone who doesn't believe

thanks for opening my eyes, OP!
the system has been feeding us THE BIG LIE! we really do have a soul!

seriously though comix made me think, still kinda belive evolution, but not fully.

atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, it has nothing to do with any of this anyway, damn it

>>3630315
it just shows that we're not completely right, people make mistakes all the time, that's how you figure things out :)

I don't understand things so I will make shit up that reinforces my belief system

>>3630315
>>3630322

It shows that people don't have to bother to read up on things

Ever heard of russel's teapot?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

But then, I realize this whole post is a troll. This IS 4chan, even if it is /sci

There's so many things wrong with the comic.
I do remember seeing a fixed version that actually had the professor give sane answers.

I can't believe any person who truly believed in chick tracts would a) use the internet or 2) post on 4chan

>>3630286
ok it got me until it started talking about particle physics

>>3630315
consider this: does the described scenario depict reality?

science never claims to know all of the answers and typically welcomes ALL questions excepting the most inconsiderate and rude occasions, such as during the lecture portion of a lecture, or without consideration to the other students or to repeat a question after it has already been addressed.

i have never known a science professor that has behaved as the lunatic in the comic. however... it appears to be a pretty good approximation of a religious jerk, if you simply exchange the scientific theories for bible verses selectively chosen to reflect that persons own prejudices and wishes.

But you never know

but you know what they say about trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

>Jack Chick tract

>>3630359

Silly goose doesn't look at the thread before replying :-D

>>3630366

I mean, again, I don't think anybody who takes chick tracts seriously is capable of forming even incomplete sentences

CAPTCHA: henerd

A misunderstanding of evolution because you didn't bother to do the reading is no excuse. Imagine if I started misquoting the bible. I mean everybody knows "Blessed art the cheesemakers"

Blessed art the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

When it's a steaming shithole.

Captcha: NIV (LOLOLOLOL!)

oops, skipped one

I'm gonna be a zoroastrian

The only thing worse than a non-thinker is flood detected

>>3630384

but radioisotpes are a hoax by the jews!

*sigh*

>>3630388

HOX GENES FTW!

>>3630391

I <3 being a great ape.

I'd just like to point out that MACROevolution has been observed in a lab setting, and can be replicated.

FARTS LOL

>>3630395

BLASPHEMY

I prayed away my gay cancer and all my neurological disorders

>>3630400

I don't need science. Or the internet

>>3630401

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE

>>3630404

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

>>3630400
it's like we really haven't discovered the strong force

>>3630408

though I did have a lot of scotch and it didn't hurt me...

>>3630409

Jesus' loving palms = strong force = time cube

>>3630412

PIME TUBE!

Well, all in all, thanks for th comic stripe OP. I saved it for the lulz. Filename: horseshit.png

>>3630415
>>3630415

I mean sure we don't need to go overboard jeez calm down

>>3630416 Also, fuck my typing. Should read comic strip. Meh.

>>3630416

just go the website you can totally get all of them THEY ARE ALL AMAZINGLY AWESOME

I prefer the one about the catholic death wafer

>>3630315
you realize that the examples shown are what creationists used to use as "flaws" to somehow prove evolution false.

when in reality, they pulled these "flaws" out of their asses and made shit up or left shit out about them and promoted them as truth.

there are no flaws in evolution, only something like a rabbit in the Precambrian would completely disprove evolution

Dude is seriously nuts. Should give hope to every crackpot out there: you too can get funding for your nutbaggery:

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_01.asp

>>3630315

op trolling op trolling op trolling op TIME FOR BED FUCK YOU

>>3630423

Well, to be perfectly honest, I am an atheist, perhaps even an anti-theist, but I plan to start my own religion for the lulz. And the money.

>>3630426

s'how scientology got where it is today

if L. Ron can, so can you!

OP posts comic

entire pictures of thread are the same comic completely destroying the first topic

>>3630431

I was bored and I still haven't gone to sleep yet WHY here was the website I got them from

http://www.facts4u.com/OffSite_Stored_Pages/wyd_files/wyd.htm

the circular reasoning part is right. They date layers of earth based on what they find in it, and they date what they find in it based on layers of earth.

That really doesn't have anything to do with evolution though.

>>3630435

I AM TOO LAZY TO READ

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating2.html

I enjoyed this thread.

>>3630435
Just because something works two ways, doesn't make it circular.

>>3630431
lulz at the falseness

>>3630435

This is a gross oversimplification, to the point of being a lie.

>>3630435
lemme use engrish to tell you how it is.

They discover these layers, they discover what is inside and what is inside corresponds to the layer, they then can say that "you'll find this in that layer"

>>3630439
>>3630448
>>3630450
>>3630453

I never said that the things inside the layers were not chronologically ordered. Im saying there is no good reason to believe that the actual time scales they attribute to the layers is accurate

>>3630461
>>3630461
ACCURATE? ARE YOU STUPID?

They date these using Radiometric dating, which is accurate down to .06%

THATS REALLY FUCKING ACCURATE.

That is how they know the dates of these layers, the layers may have different ranges of dates but they are all accurate and proven so, the fossils found in these layers date to their appropriate periods which is why these layers work

>>3630453

Don't forget the inter-consistent dating processes and methods, like radio-isotope dating, that tell us how old the things in the layer in question are. And the geological evidence. A notable example is the volcanic ash throughout sedimentary layers that correspond to eruptions. We can date the ash, and thereby the surrounding layers.

>>3630465

Dunning-Krueger much?

>>3630466
>>3630465
The way they do radio carbon dating is they take a sample and date it, if it doesn't match what they are loosely expecting they consider it to be a bad sample and keep testing until they find something that fits into the a 'realistic' time period they are expecting.

The problem is whats realistic is dictated by those other things.

If they found a clay pot they thought was around 2500 years old and tried to date it, and it said it was ten million years old, they would just take another sample until it said what they thought it would.

Look at that Turin shroud thing (which i think is a hoax but this is an example), dont like the result so 'oh, must be fire damage, test again' etc.

I admittedly don’t know a lot about evolution and that but I could pull the comic up at two sections. 1st the fossil chart, and second, the atom.

We don’t know the age of fossils due to the “age of the rocks around the fossil”, we know it because of carbon dating, very generally: a part of carbon morphs into carbon 14 over time. By measuring the carbon 14 content of a substance, we can find the age of the substance.

The creationist is right in saying that the atom should fly apart due to the electromagnetic force, however the strong force (aptly named) is marginally stronger than the electromagnetic force and thus, is capable of binding the protons neutrons and electrons in the atom.

I am not an expert, but retards annoy me.

>>3630346
>>3630349
>>3630352
>>3630353
>>3630355
>>3630360
>>3630363
>>3630365
>>3630367
>>3630369
>>3630370
>>3630374
>>3630375
>>3630377
>>3630379
>>3630384
>>3630385
>>3630388
>>3630391
>>3630394
>>3630396
>>3630400
>>3630401
>>3630404
>>3630408
>>3630410
>>3630412
>>3630415
>>3630417
>>3630420
>>3630423
>>3630425

OP here, thanks.

>>3630475

In other words, they take many different samples to corroborate any result, especially a very unexpected result. As you would hope they do. To say they "keep looking until they find what they want" is extremely disingenuous.

>OP is a chick tract and "checkmate, atheists"
>62 posts and 35 iumage replies omitted
>hardly anyone saging
>no sign of slowing down

I fucking hate you, sometimes, /sci/.

>>3630487
But its what they do.

Take two theories, one widely held and the other considered crackpot. Two radio carbon tests, each test confirms one of the two theories.

The 'evidence' for the crackpot theory would just be considered an inaccurate result and thrown out.

So what is the value of radio carbon dating as evidence then, if its only considered solid evidence when it collaborates with what people want to see?

>>3630495
>But its what they do.

No, it isn't. Where are you getting your information?

>>3630495

Isn't that argument supposed to be in Oz asking some wizard for a brain?

>>3630498
I just gave you an example, a theoretical situation.

My argument is that if the results are not considered solid evidence equally, then it has no value as being evidence to back up any claim.

>>3630495
>each test confirms one of the two theories.

I hope you're trolling.

>>3630503
>I just gave you an example, a theoretical situation.

So, you're getting your information from your own imagination?

>>3630501
But the scarecrow had a brain all along.

>>3630503
>where are you getting information?
>I made shit up

>>3630495
But that's not how it works.
If we find an object that seems to be evidence that humans are only around for 6000 years, then it contradicts the entire body of knowledge. This doesn't mean that we throw out the body of knowledge, nor does it mean that we reject the new evidence. It means that the evidence is being re-examined. Makes sense doesn't it?

>>3630508
I am creating an imaginary situation so that it can be well defined and objective, then arguing my point with reason.

If two conflicting ideas both gain evidence to back them up through a test, then the results confirming both ideas must be considered flawed. you can not throw out the results for one idea and keep the results for the other idea. Neither idea should be able to use the result of the test as evidence they are true.

And if neither idea can use the result of that particular method of testing to prove they are true, we are back to the circular reasoning involved in dating the layers of the earth.

wow, i just came to /sci/ to troll them with this comic and it's already here. cool.

here the link if that interest somenone.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

This is actually nazi propaganda. Note how the teacher is portrayed as a big-nosed jew and the boy is a blonde aryan.
Hooray for Godwin's law.

>>3630529
To clarify on case anyone doesn't get it. The problem i have is not that the result saying the clay pot is 10 million years old is thrown out.

Its that the result saying the clay pot is 2500 years old is kept.

You cant say that just because there is more evidence for one than the other, that NEW evidence can be selectively kept or discarded only when it agrees with whats popular.

>>3630556
>fascist
>being pro-religion

you can only pick one

>>3630561
The point is that the good evidence is well founded.
For dates in a range of 2000 years (sometimes more), we have (some) documentation. This range overlaps decent carbon dating. Hence, we can assure ourselves that carbon dating is consistant. We can look at layers of rock, and carbon date the shit that's inside. We can then do radiometric dating on other shit found in the ground, and use carbon dating as a callibration. So it all depends on eachother, but it's not circular.

>>3630566
protip: don't talk about stuff you don't have any knowledge about.

>>3630585
There's nothing wrong with talking about something you know nothing about, as long as you're open to being corrected, and hence gather knowledge.

>>3630585
I would say that Benito Mussolini is more an authority on fascism than you are, bub.

>>3630596
protip: mussolini was not the only fascist.
protip: you can find footage of christmas ceremony with hundreds of nazis standing around a giant illuminated crucifix.
protip: don't talk about stuff you don't have any knowledge of.

>Kent Hovind

That's the guy who believes the world was made 6000 years ago. And now he's accepting fossils dating back 200 million years?

>>3630603
>protip: mussolini was not the only fascist.
He was probably the most important one in the 20th century.
>protip: you can find footage of christmas ceremony with hundreds of nazis standing around a giant illuminated crucifix.
And what does this prove? Politicians have to politic. Hitler tried to 'adapt' Christianity due to the large number of germans who considered themselves christians before deciding it was not worth the trouble
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians
>protip: don't talk about stuff you don't have any knowledge of.

indeed.

>>3630626
> 'religion and fascism are mutually exclusive'
> but the nazis used christian mythology
> 'religion and fascism are mutually exclusive'

ok bro, learn how to rationalism and i'll cya later

>>3630626
If you were arguing that fascism and religion are independant, I would agree. But the proposition that they are mutually exclusive is not only falsifiably wrong, but even an a priori rediculous statement.

>>3630644
Fascism is itself sort of a religion. Like other religions it may attempt to adapt certain parts of the local religion to make conversion easier.

If you want to argue semantics about it and then say that what i just said means fascism is pro-religion, then fine. When most people say religion i assume they mean actual religion, and not political ideologies which adopt religious methodologies.

>>3630661
One of the core ideas in fascism is that the state comes first, its everything. There is no room in a fascist society for something 'higher' than the state. Therefore there is no room for religion.

Does anyone have the one where he claims a thinner atmosphere made dinosaur's nostrils catch fire because they were breathing too hard?

>>3630665
which leaves you to explain the key difference between the two

>>3630675
unless the church is the same as the state then everything works out peachy

If you want a thorough debunking/riffing of the comic, there's one here.
http://enterthejabberwock.com/2002/04/chick-dissection-big-daddy/

here's the disconnect. take for instance if i was a neck-bearded basement-dweller and was intensely fat but in order to go and procreate i would need to be able to get up out of my chair to go outside to find a female. i would find out that one of two situations would occur. 1.) i would be able to find a suitable female neck-bearded basement-dweller or 2.) have to change to my surroundings to make myself more pleasing to the opposite sex. if situation 1 occurs then there's no reason to change and evolution is halted and there will be more NB-BD's however if situation 2 occurs, this is evolution by natural selection. however there is also outside influenced selection as well...

>>3630675
>>3630675
Or if the state comes first, because that's what god said.

this comic made me rage

Wow this board really deserves to die.

>kid proposes thought experiment to illumine a point on how we accept evidence
>/sci/ berates him for making up "imaginary" situations and, reliably, links it to religion

This board has the both the most and least intelligent members of any board, but has twice the number of people who vastly overrate their knowledge and ability on any given matter.


Fuck you /sci/, I wish moot would off you.

>>3633491
What the hell are you talking about? About the comic?
If so, I don't see the connection between it and what you just typed.

bump

Sorry guys I accidentally posted #5 right here

>>3637190

<--- this is #6......it won't let me duplicate file

Denigrating evolution is fun, but the data happens to be on science's side. The bible is full of fairy tales and magic.

>>3637201
...then delete the other thread, then you can repost the image again.

I love how science claims to love facts and then ignores any that disprove evolution. I have a portrait of one of my ancestors, he looks like me but he really looks no more like a monkey than my father did.

Okay here's 5 again


I thought i had to leave but i can stay....posting another 6-comic evolution thing

>>3637209
There are two headed babies, are they evidence of us evolving from 2 headed monkeys? There are babies with no skin, does this mean we evolved from animals without skin?

You're a fucking joke and I'm glad we don't let people like you influence children by teaching them lies where I live.

>>3637248
>anecdotal evidence.
>completely ignorant of the vastness of the evolutionary timescale.
>hurr durr

1/6

>>3637260

>>3630286
That made me lol because that's exactly what would happen to a biologist.

2/6

3/6

4/6

......4/6

5/6

jesus tapdancing christ 5/6

6/6

>>3637248
If we thought for one second that you were not trolling, and actually wanted to debate. There is a chance that someone with know how might waste a bit of time on you.

Dawkins already has a ton of videos up of him debating young earth creationists.

fact
   [fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

>>3637300
Elitist fascist. You're attitude is why I will win. The general public are unmoved by your ivory tower antics and it lets them find out the truth for themselves. I guess I should thank you for giving me the chance to save people from you.

>>3637260
nice strawman, but you left out albinos. If there was a creator everyone would be born without defects. Humans are in no way perfect creatures. Many animals have better adaptations, in accordance with evolution. Our scenes of smell, sight, and hearing are very sub par compared to animals who require those to survive.

>>3637325 If there was a creator everyone would be born without defects.

Nice strawman, truth hater. Variation is the Lord's way of testing us.

>>3637373

>Variation is the Lord's way of testing us.

how do you know?

>>3637373
and some people are tested more than others? seems a bit unfair.

>>3637321
Well if you want to believe in a god that does everything in it's power to prove that is does not exist. You are welcome too.

There there are those who suggest that genesis goes along with the theory of big bang, and suggests that it was merely stretched over billions of years.

That does not work either because of this one glaring impossibility would not fit

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

If you look at that the plants were created on the 3rd day the sun and stars on the 4th. which would have made it impossible for the plants to photosynthesize. So there goes the millions or billions of years idea.

Yet some even take a harder line that the world is only 6 thousand years old. Which would also be impossible because you would never even be able to see 98% of the stars in the night sky because of the speed of light.

Intelligent design is not science, and if it is the bible is a work of fiction. Pick one.