This Is What You`re Missing On TV, Part 114 [Pic]

Submitted by: orange_panty 6 years ago in Funny

Stupid Flanders takes Rod and Todd to the museum, worst fears are realized.
There are 104 comments:
Female 385
@moocow22: I am firmly in the camp that our time has what meaning we chose to give it.

So what if the universe doesn`t care that we`re here? I don`t need the acknowledgment of some omnipotent entity to feel like my life is worth living.

I find worth in experiencing the universe for myself. I find worth in appreciating what nature has sculpted in the forms of valleys and mountains. I find worth in the arms of a lover, or the company of a friend.

My life has meaning to me. Why would I ever care if has meaning to someone or something else?
0
Reply
Female 37
@Yaezakura: I like your thoughts. I offer a solution to the conundrum of one side modifying while the other doesn`t regarding origins: if someone assumes supernatural origins, then it follows that that person also acknowledges that evolution and science will never provide all the answers, therefore deeming willingness to modify the root assumption of supernatural origins unnecessary and thereby illogical. Considering there are some things that have been mathematically shown (by an extension of Fermat`s Last Theorem) unanswerable through scientific means, for example natural selection leading to evolution of human cognitive abilities, I stand by saying that belief in supernatural origins isn`t always inconsistent and lacking legitimate intellectual processes.

On a different note, if evolution is pure chance, projects no future purpose, and causes life to be void of meaning beyond existence, then perhaps everything we just said is `meaningless,` and I can have no further respons
0
Reply
Female 385
@moocow22: The difference is that one side is willing to change its views when presented with new information, while the other literally relies on rejecting reality whenever it contradicts its existing ideas.

The scientific viewpoint is not "there is no being ultimately responsible for the universe as we know it", but "there is no evidence to suggest that there is a being that is responsible for the universe as we know it, so there is no reason to believe one exists". If evidence is found that suggests otherwise, that position will change. That is the beauty of science.

Morality is easily explained by evolution. "Meaning" requires the rather large assumption that we HAVE some kind of greater meaning other than being the byproducts of natural processes.

I genuinely do not believe every creationist is stupid. But I do believe that to continue to cling to such bronze-age fairy tales makes them cowards unable to cope with reality.
0
Reply
Female 37
@Yaezakura: I`m not quite sure you understood my meaning. I agree with you: scientifically speaking, belief in creation is a terrible hypothesis because something supernatural cannot be tested with the tangible world. However, not following Occam`s razor doesn`t necessarily mean one has abandoned logic: there are historical considerations, questions of meaning/morality, experiences, etc. Can one therefore generalize that anyone believing in creation does so without logical reasoning? I would hesitate to say so because the path to believing something isn`t a linear one, and assumptions always underlie beliefs. Even science relies on assumptions: there is a real and knowable universe, the universe follows rules, these laws are immutable, and the laws can be studied. Though I understand your point, my comment was from the perspective that assuming something supernatural isn`t inherently worse than assuming something about the testable, natural world when no one can say what is absolute.
0
Reply
Female 385
@moocow22

There are no legitimate "intellectual processes" which can lead to belief in creationism. "God did it" is an intellectual band-aid. It gives you the feeling of having knowledge without actually having any knowledge. You`re replacing the unknown with the unknowable.

Creationism is not and can never be science, because it cannot be tested. Even if it somehow turned out that evolution was entirely wrong as an explanation for the diversity of life on earth (and every bit of evidence that exists says that it is true with absolutely no contradicting evidence), that wouldn`t mean Creationism wins by default. Scientists would simply begin developing new theories based on the observable world around them.

That is the difference between science and religion. Religion starts from a position and ignores all contradicting facts. Science starts with facts and continually rebuilds its positions when new facts are found.
0
Reply
Female 37
Every time I see heated arguments about macroevolution vs creation, I always wonder why many posters have this underlying assumption that all who believe in creation have done so without relying on intellectual processes. That in itself is a logical fallacy: how can one argue such a sweeping statement when belief in either creation or evolution demands at some point assumptions and leaps in reasoning? There are many on both sides who willingly believe whatever it is without question, but assuming that everyone does so makes debates about such topics suddenly unintellectual and consequently unarguable. The fact of the matter is that our current understanding cannot definitively reveal what is absolute (because of gaps in the knowledge), no matter how much `proof` is thrown around. There are countless questions (e.g. a physical entity cannot explain its own existence) with both, so why not be skeptical instead of tossing insults? No one will change anyone via the platform of this forum.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
lol @ Creationism nut jobs
0
Reply
Female 385
[quote]Wrong! Somebody just did.[/quote]

I think some proper emphasis is needed.

[quote]Nobody with any *meaningful understanding of science* could make that statement.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 543
Anyone that believes in Creationism should prove it, instead of always trying to disprove evolution (and the Bible doesn`t count). And if you do believe in Creationism, I blame your close minded parents.
0
Reply
Female 812
[quote]Nobody with any meaningful understanding of science could make that statement.[/quote]

Wrong! Somebody just did.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
Lol.
I didn`t miss that though.
0
Reply
Female 385
@startech

I do believe you`re the one who needs to do research here, instead of parroting what you read off creationist websites. Carbon dating is a highly reliable measuring stick because radioactive decay is very predictable. It`s also been cross-checked with other dating methods and measured on objects who`s dates are known through different means to assure its accuracy. Scientists don`t just pick things at random and use them. They test, test, test, and then only when they fail to break it a million times do they grudgingly accept that they work. Carbon dating is no exception to this.

As for proof of macro-evolution, the distinction between micro and macro is purely artificial. Macro evolution is simply a whole lot of micro evolution. It is the difference between walking 10 feet and walking a mile. Saying micro evolution is possible but macro evolution isn`t is saying that it`s possible to walk 10 feet, but a mile is just impossible.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Do your research people![/quote]
Back atcha.

What I *will* point to is this: You`re aware, aren`t you, that carbon dating is only useful to about 60000 before present due to the relatively short half-life of carbon-14? Archaeologists use carbon dating. Biologists, Palaeontologists, Geologists, those that study observable evidence for evolution, do not.

I apologise for sounding snooty: You, like everyone I`ve ever met who denies evolution, appear to be scientifically illiterate.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]I dare anyone to show me indisputable evidence of macro evolution. You won`t find it, because there isn`t any. And before you start going off about carbon dating and crap, remember that carbon dating is a dating method that has no actual reference point... Do your research people![/quote]

*headdesk*

Let`s entertain the creationist notion that macroevolution and microevolution are different things (pro tip, they`re not. Macroevolution=lots of microevolution over a long period of time. It`s like saying I believe in bricks but I don`t believe in buildings). I won`t bother pointing to the fossil record, or why the `flu vaccine has to me remade every year, or how fruit flies have been bred to speciate in the lab, or why antibiotics should be taken in moderation etc etc etc, as there`s little point.
0
Reply
Male 1,341
Startech, show me indisputable evidence that God exists.....
0
Reply
Male 235
I dare anyone to show me indisputable evidence of macro evolution. You won`t find it, because there isn`t any. And before you start going off about carbon dating and crap, remember that carbon dating is a dating method that has no actual reference point. It`s like trying to measure something with a ruler that has no numbers or marks on it. Do your research people!
0
Reply
Male 515
haha flanders
0
Reply
Male 1,341
Also this reminds me of when Homerproves there is no God.
0
Reply
Male 144
@davymid
I know that it is not perfect. She probably was I haven`t worked for her in months so I mixed that up.

But the sun was created before plants were, after the earth was created. According to the Big Bang theory though, first the stars then the planets.
Also day/night cycle was created before the sun. This still leaves me puzzled.

I think I should speak with her again, before I say anything else :P .
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The problem is scientists would never believe that God made the earth, even if someday one turned over a 5 billion year old rock and it said "Made by God" on it.

The problem is faith, Scientists have put all their eggs into one `observable and or measurable evidence` basket.[/quote]

And you`re so desperate to deny the reality of what science actually is, as well as all evidence about everything, that you contradict yourself frequently and don`t even notice.

A rock is observable and measureable evidence. Writing on it is also observable and measureable evidence.

Of course, in reality the message would have been carved recently by a creationist and hailed as proof only by other creationists.

I`m slightly surprised none of them have done it yet.
0
Reply
Male 1,341
Crakrjak: "They see miracles as mere luck"

So what do you see disaster and catastrophe as? Gods bad sense of humor?

Crakrjak: "They don`t see the universe as it really is, They see it how they want it to be"

Uhh I would say that is more of a religious way to do things than a scientific method. What easier way to have all the answers for everything? Just say God did it! That`s the problem with you religious nuts, why try to prove something when you can just say your mythical being in the sky is responsible?

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Just putting it out there: The fossil record does NOT support species to species evolution. No missing link has been found.[/quote]

Species to species evolution can be observed in living animals as well as in the fossil record.

The phrase "missing link" isn`t part of the theory of evolution. Using it is a bit of a giveaway.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Also ‘your lack of understanding what it is’ where did you get the impression that I[/quote] [cut off by IAB]

That you lack understanding of what science is?

When you wrote this:

[quote]Science and faith are both created by humans so I do not believe in one of them per se or more in one than the other[/quote]

Nobody with any meaningful understanding of science could make that statement.
0
Reply
Male 1,287
Careful there, CrakrJak. You`re dangerously close to
0
Reply
Male 427
@CrakrJak
I love how people just pull random stuff out of their asses
Around 3 ago in the US the education program, regarding creationism and evolution, was taken to court in several states because lots of parents didn`t want their kids to learn about intelligent design instead of the evolution theory.
I can`t remember the name, but the scientist that was trying to prove the evolution theory to the judges was Christian and did believe in god. If I remember correctly he ended up winning in several cases, even when the judges were devout Christians and didn`t believe in evolution at all.

To those who are saying the missing hasn`t been found, you`re wrong. You`re talking about the missing link in one species, completely neglecting all the other species in the world. The most you can say is that humans didn`t "evolve from monkeys", but evolution IS real and has been proven in several other species, organs and even bacteria.
0
Reply
Female 69
Wow, that guy was right. They do rip a lot of stuff from 9Gag! I guess, it`s Ok though, since some of us don`t have time to read several sites a day.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
lordtyusa: The problem is scientists would never believe that God made the earth, even if someday one turned over a 5 billion year old rock and it said "Made by God" on it.

The problem is faith, Scientists have put all their eggs into one `observable and or measurable evidence` basket. That makes them myopic to the rest of the universe, most of which they can not put a ruler too or see. They see miracles as mere luck, Synchronicity as random coincidence.

They don`t see the universe as it really is, They see it how they want it to be, which is why their theories fail quite often and they argue over them amongst themselves. But they don`t want the `common people` to know they each despise one another`s theories and believe their own. They believe they must look united, even when they bicker amongst themselves over the latest scrap of evidence.
0
Reply
Male 47
Just putting it out there: The fossil record does NOT support species to species evolution. No missing link has been found.
0
Reply
Male 674
Angilion, in theory you are a bone-head with an incomplete education. Perhaps you live on the verge of breaking the law.

"A scientific theory is in many ways bigger than a scientific law."

Pure rubbish! Theories and laws have well defined rules to establish them. "Bigger than" does not show up in the texts! You must be stone cold Crazy!
0
Reply
Female 812
@3000000Juice – No I do not believe in science being correct, sue me
@PsyckGeek – Yes, I’m honestly going to sit here and say that science is invented by humans, just as the quote below explains
@Crucible – HER name is Oblivia (...)

[quote] The scientific method was invented by humans, but your comparison is deeply flawed by your lack of understanding of what it is.
Science is essentially a methodical way to find dependable explanations for things that happen. That`s all. It doesn`t create the things that happen, e.g. fire cooked food before scientists came up with an explanation of thermodynamics. [/quote]

That’s (first sentence up until but) what I was trying to say, yet it looks like I’m misunderstood because of the word `created`
Did I say it creates the things that happen? If so, where o where did I do that? O_o
Also ‘your lack of understanding what it is’ where did you get the impression that I
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@davymid


No problem.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The description of how that force affects the bullet isn`t even a theory - it`s only a law![/quote]

In case anyone is wondering, I didn`t make a mistake in that sentence. A scientific theory is in many ways bigger than a scientific law. A theory explains a lot, a law just describes a little. And strictly speaking the law I referred to (F=ma) isn`t a scientific law as it isn`t absolutely true.

We have a system in place where the minimum standard is perfection at all times (a scientific theory or law must withstand every challenge every time) and people are still claiming it`s all just conjecture that`s probably untrue. It`s bizarre, truly bizarre.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv Ah, thanks Cajun, missed that. I`d like to hope that I has some scientific merit, having earned my PhD in Geology some years back (yeah, I know anyone can spout any old crap on the internet, but that`s actually true).

Also, @lordtyusa, since everyone seems to putting markerlights on your particular target, I`ll join in: Dude, do you have any friends from northern Japan? If so, please go to your phone, call them up and reassure them that the scientific Theory of Plate Tectonics is just a theory.

I`d be especially delighted if you would record their response to your words of encouragement.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Oh I forgot the first one:

--Deliberately misnamed JUST to discredit it. Yet it`s rather obvious how the universe is expanding much to Einstein`s chagrin.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
So let`s go through that list of your`s lordtyusa:

--While not fully understood, nonetheless, has a LOT of evidence to back it up as opposed to "intelligent design" or "creationism".
--Shown to be as a much better quantifier of gravity than Newton`s laws (I`m probably referring to a subset).
--It`s happening, the big question is: how much are we humans influencing it?
--Countless observations (tree leaves, economies, weather etc.) in nature have lend credence to it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote](more than the magic man in the sky THEORY at least)[/quote]

For the sake of accuracy: that isn`t a theory in the scientific sense. It an untestable hypothesis, which is way, way below a theory.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Just in case anyone thinks that lordtyusa`s bullpoo definition of "theory" has any merit, here`s an important point:

If a million people spend their entire lifetimes testing a theory in a million different ways and each way is repeated a thousand times by each of the million people and the theory holds true every single time without exception...it is still a theory.

In science, a theory is a fairly broad-ranging explanation of how something works that can potentially be proven wrong if it is wrong.

The first thing done with a theory is to try as many ways as possible to prove it wrong. Then it`s given to other scientists for them to try to prove it wrong (peer review). Then it`s published so that anyone can attempt to prove it wrong.

It is never "promoted" to something else if proven true. It is always a theory.

The standard of reliability for a scientific theory is way past what would be considered fact in day to da
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The germ theory of disease is just a theory,[/quote]

Which believe it or not replaced the BS "miasma theory" of disease put forth by Vitruvius...

...who was an architect.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I has zero scientific merit[/quote]


"It has zero scientific merit"

--Fixed
0
Reply
Male 12,365
lordtyusa:

Are you willing to inject yourself with HIV, Ebola and yersenia pestis and jump off a tall building into a speeding train that`s on fire?

If not, why not? The germ theory of disease is just a theory, right? Physics is all just theories, right? Thermodynamics is also just a theory.

Seeing a pattern yet?

Or why not just shoot yourself in the head? The theory explaining why gunpowder burns so quickly is only a theory. The theory explaining why this exerts a force on the bullet is only a theory. The description of how that force affects the bullet isn`t even a theory - it`s only a law! All of biological theory is just a theory, so it won`t matter even if the bullet does mash your brain, right?

The pattern is that you`re spectactularly ignorant of science or you`re a liar or both.
0
Reply
Male 11
@lordtyusa if you actually understood the basic THEORY behind the sciences you would understand that we`re ok with these THEORIES being THEORIES albeit THEORIES that have a vast amount of evidence behind them. (more than the magic man in the sky THEORY at least) And that to have a THEORY proven wrong is never a bad thing in science. Scientists are constantly trying to prove themselves wrong and get rid of their assumptions (like the assumption that the invisible all powerful dude did it for lack of tangible evidence otherwise or a better THEORY) this is the way the human race learns things dumbass, it`s the reason why you are able to sit in front of your computer screen all day posting inane babble instead of getting off your ass and learning something occasionally.
0
Reply
Male 76
I like turtles.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Look, a belief in the Bible is all well and good. But PLEASE remember that it was written in the Bronze Age. I has zero scientific merit, and in fact is chock-full of scientifically incongruous notions. Take Genesis for what it is, a creation myth. To believe what’s in Genesis as in any way an accurate scientific account of the origins of the universe, earth, and life thereon, is a bit silly. Which is exactly the point this Simpsons cartoon was making.

*Trace fossils (“footprints” if you will) of land animals as early as 530MYA have been found. The earliest existing fossil of a land-dwelling creature is from around 428MYA.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
metalhannes: [quote]The bible tells the creation of the universe almost identical to evolution... Even the order in which organisms appear: vegetation -> fish -> bird -> land -> human...

I believe that the bible is 100% correct and without contradiction.[/quote]

Interesting take on that. As a PhD Biologist, your friend would have been aware that the actual order is more like:

Fish (c.500MYA) –> Plants (c.475MYA) –> Land Animals (428MYA*) -> Birds (c.150MYA) –> Humans (<1MYA)

That’s one out of five in correct sequence. And as you pointed out, it’s a bit strange that the earth was created, then plants, then the sun (one wonders how the plants photosynthesized).
0
Reply
Male 2,855
I should have gone to 9gag.com
0
Reply
Female 803
@lordtyusa, you WOULD be from the Bible Belt. You are FAR old enough to know that a scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory. Please, google "scientific theory" for me.
0
Reply
Male 144
@lordtyusa what do you think is chaos theory?
0
Reply
Male 694
lordtyusa`s argument seems flawless if you ask me.
*SARCASM*
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Gravity is just a theory, so I`m just going to ignore it.[/quote]

We know it`s "there" we just don`t know "what it is". We can quantify it yet we can`t replicate it.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]And for all you who think theories are just stepping stones to truth (that all theories will be eventually proven true) read the following[/quote]

That does not mean they have been disproven, there is a lot of evidence to back up evolution than creationism. It is not a "theory in crisis".
0
Reply
Female 14
@lordtyusa
Gravity is just a theory, so I`m just going to ignore it.
0
Reply
Male 301
...The Big Bang THEORY
The THEORY of evolution
The THEORY of relativity
Climate Change THEORY
Chaos THEORY

Just to name a few. Sensing a pattern here?

And for all you who think theories are just stepping stones to truth (that all theories will be eventually proven true) read the following:

10 Famous Theories That Were Wrong
0
Reply
Male 301
Scientists/Atheists/IAB Posters: "My theories are more true than your theories!"
Me: *Groan*

Just FYI: Theory (n.) A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

This means you BELIEVE your ideas to be true. How is this different than a Christian who BELIEVES differently???

I`m just saying...
0
Reply
Male 139
This site has become the same for trolls as a bucket of fish heads is to sharks. The arguments make most of us even more bored than we were before.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
that last pic of flander`s is what all the creationists do every time someone makes a valid point about evolution... God put dinosaur bones in the ground to TEST us!!
0
Reply
Male 144
@LazyMe484
Why not? Apart from the creation of the sun, the moon and the stars everything is the way the big bang theory and evolution say. Even the order in which organisms appear: vegetation -> fish -> bird -> land -> human.

But to learn more about _how_ life came to be I wouldn`t turn to the bible of course. That`s not what the bible was written for. If I want to learn _why_ though, I will turn to the bible.
But I believe that the bible is 100% correct and without contradiction.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Science and faith are both created by humans so I do not believe in one of them per se or more in one than the other[/quote]

The scientific method was invented by humans, but your comparison is deeply flawed by your lack of understanding of what it is.

Science is essentially a methodical way to find dependable explanations for things that happen. That`s all. It doesn`t create the things that happen, e.g. fire cooked food before scientists came up with an explanation of thermodynamics.

To compare science with faith is very silly.

Yaezakura`s comment on Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:17:39 PM neatly sums up what a scientific theory is and what it isn`t.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
@metalhannes I wouldn`t try to merge the two if I were you. By your own admission, they are incompatible.

@Serpentchick You may be interested to know there are more scientists named steve who support evolution then there are "scientists" who oppose it.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
That might not make a bad post for IAB :)
0
Reply
Male 1,815
PscychGeek, it`s pointless. His name is Oblivia after all.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Oblivia:

....really? Really? you`re honestly going to sit there and tell us that science was invented by humans? so then photosynthesis and chemical combustion were invented by humans...riiiiiiiight. >.<
0
Reply
Male 40,751
Lolz! I love the Simpsons! Them and South Park, best shows on TV!
0
Reply
Male 11
also you used per se wrong
0
Reply
Male 11
@oblivia
So you don`t believe in science? I`m pretty sure science wasn`t `invented`.

derrrrr
0
Reply
Female 812
Science and faith are both created by humans so I do not believe in one of them per se or more in one than the other
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Simpsons for the win
0
Reply
Male 128
ITT: People takin a joke too seriously


this pic made me lol
0
Reply
Female 379
As a 4th year biology student, who`s actually taken classes in things like evolution, let me tell you something important : Natural Selection is not a theory, it is a fact. The part of Evolution that is theory is exactly what evolved from what. We`re still figuring that out. You guys also don`t seem to understand the term macro evolution. That means evolution between species, at a level higher than species. It does not mean speciation, as we already have a term for that...speciation. And we have proof that speciation occurs. Look up things like the ensatina species of salamander, or the fact that most ducks could interbreed if there weren`t actual physiological barriers. All the facts that are called into question by creationists are not called into question by scientists. Even the courts ruled that creationism isn`t a science. Get over it.
0
Reply
Male 144
Here are my two cents on the evolution and creation discussion. This is my former boss`s opinion on this issue. She is a christian with a PhD in biology.
The bible tells the creation of the universe almost identical to evolution.
Here is Genesis 1:
1) Heavens and Earth are created.
2) Earth is formless, empty and there is water everywhere.
3-5) Creation of day and night (Planets begin to rotate around the sun. This is all in one day (or one time-epoch. I don`t think it`s actually a day because there was no light at the beginning).
6-8) Creation of a sky (or atmoshpere).2nd day.
9-10) Creation of land. First continent appears.
12-13) Vegetation begins. 3rd Day.
14-19) Creation of the Sun, Moon and Stars. This is a major gap between creation and evolution. 4th day.
20-23) Creation of fish and birds. 5th day.
21) Creation of land-animals. Seperation into different species and then humans.
Notice that in the chronological creation it is not s
0
Reply
Female 385
[quote]Not necessary. Some of us went to universities and studied natural sciences, where we learned that evolution is no longer a theory but a scientific fact supported by overwhelming evidence. But thanks for the suggestion.[/quote]
But evolution is a theory. Just not in the way that creationists like to think.

Evolution happens. This is an undeniable fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of WHY and HOW evolution happens. Just like Atomic Theory is the explanation of how atoms work, not something that says "atoms are real". And how Germ Theory is an explanation of how germs work, not something that says "germs are real".

Just like you can feel the forces of gravity yourself, see atoms and germs with powerful microscopes for yourself... even if the theories are wrong, it doesn`t change the fact that these things exist. The theories are there to explain the facts, not to define the facts.

And the same is true of evolution.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]i dont give two poos what people believe but FLIZOK, you sound like a pretentious douche right now. just sayin[/quote]
gatorade777, don`t get all butthurt just because fiizok told the truth. And Boredhero78, why would I need to waste my time reading horsesh*t "holy" texts AGAIN? I don`t see you reading up on Hubbard`s teachings. [quote]Be an individual with a mind of your own, do the research without any bias beliefs before hand, and sit back in awe with what you discover.[/quote]
Sorry bub, but I`ll only be listening to the people who tend to be biased towards truth (aka: scientists). That`s a bias I happen to like.
0
Reply
Male 2,049
""Do yourself a favor; look up anti and pro evolutionary theories, actually read a Bible, Torah, Quran, and the Origin of Species, and then make a decision for yourself."

Word up. Dinosaurs and humans co-existed 5000 years ago. I also believe in the easter bunny, santa clause and the tooth fairy.
0
Reply
Male 149
im not missing that at all... stupid sexy simpsons nerds dont miss em
0
Reply
Male 1,193
i dont give two poos what people believe but FLIZOK, you sound like a pretentious douche right now. just sayin
0
Reply
Male 591
"Do yourself a favor; look up anti and pro evolutionary theories, actually read a Bible, Torah, Quran, and the Origin of Species, and then make a decision for yourself."

Not necessary. Some of us went to universities and studied natural sciences, where we learned that evolution is no longer a theory but a scientific fact supported by overwhelming evidence. But thanks for the suggestion.
0
Reply
Male 108
I love posting something and then coming back later just to see how many people I`ve baited into an argument. You guys are so easy to set off. It never fails. I`ve learned through this game of mine that many people who discredit a God and put their faith in evolution have an odd view of it and one that doesn`t really parallel resent discoveries in the evolutionally field. Do yourself a favor; look up anti and pro evolutionary theories, actually read a Bible, Torah, Quran, and the Origin of Species, and then make a decision for yourself. Be an individual with a mind of your own, do the research without any bias beliefs before hand, and sit back in awe with what you discover. Other people`s beliefs won`t matter after that and peace of mind will finally settle in your soul.
0
Reply
Male 257
see this is why i like the simpsons he puts som really artistic things in the cartoon like flanders children walking the opposite way across the evolution of man and in the height order to match their direction it`s all that little stuff you notice your 3rd or 4th time watching an episode
0
Reply
Male 1,365
PKMII, thank you, I stand corrected.
0
Reply
Male 429
why did `this is what you`re missing on TV` skip from like 60 to 107?
0
Reply
Male 1,365
I can write a bible and claim it to be the word of God, what I can`t do is make the moths change color like they did in england to survive the coal dust coloration of buildings so the birds would not eat them. Or the virus ability to redesign itself against antibiotics, so...for this one, I am going to rule nature over nurture.
0
Reply
Female 37
@Greylights: sadly, people are much more willing to believe macroevoluion by default (as it is the ONLY natural explanation to explain life as we know it) than based on any study of what is there or WHY macroevolution can make sense. But microevolution doesn`t prove macroevolution, direct evidence in the form of fossils generates inductive leaps, and well, indirect evidence (i.e. suboptimality, unforced hierarchical distributions, etc) simply shows it`s possible. Yet for all these lines of evidence, indirect and direct, it has been shown that we will never find something that concretely says macroevolution is correct. For that reason, arguing that people are uniformed is a moot point: whether you believe in natural explanations or supernatural, there will be holes in the logic and inductive leaps are necessary. So to some degree, one will always be uninformed. Not to mention that most people who believe in evolution are extremely uniformed about why evolution is possible.
0
Reply
Female 857
I met a girl whos parents were both Jehovah`s Witnesses.
She told me that dinosaurs never existed. When I asked her why, she told me there was never any evidence.
Never laughed so hard in my life.
0
Reply
Male 319
That is so old.
0
Reply
Male 12
@Painter13: I applaud your effort, but you might want to get your scientific fields straight before you start arguing science. Anthropologists study human history, biology, and culture. They don`t study moths. I think the term you were looking for is evolutionary biologists.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
Microevolution is proven and seen everywhere. Even this alone makes macroevolution seem reasonable.
0
Reply
Male 3,058
VorpalSword: Finally hits age 18, yet still trollin` and hatin` like a 14 year-old.

You got me good vorp... I`ll never post again.

Wanker.
0
Reply
Male 29
"I`m pretty sure the "evidence" is disputable. That`s why this argument has gone on since Darwin`s time and still has no definite answer."

I`ve met a couple of stupid people who believe the earth is flat (really). The fact that they argue about the shape of the earth and disupte the evidence doesn`t make it accurate to say that the "argument is still going on", and that "there`s no definite answer". It just means that they are uninformed.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] That`s why this argument has gone on since Darwin`s time and still has no definite answer. [/quote]

There is no argument. For it it be an argument, it must make sense, logically.
0
Reply
Male 1,365
Odd how all of the opinions from the anti evolution side come from the south. Anthropologists have proven the laws of adaptability with the moths of england, the octopus and many other species. Yet, our brethren of the south hang on to the belief that god makes everything happen. If you`re so correct, how come the North kicked your arses in the Civil War? Where was your god then? You may want to re-evaluate what gods place is. Hey ,you guys used the Bible to claim black people were less than human,(all the way up until 1967) yet evolution was counter to that thinking striking Africa as the birthplace of all life origins of humankind, which really pisses off the rednecks. A correlation?? I think so.
0
Reply
Male 1,452
"Wasted post"

wasted user
0
Reply
Male 2,528
"The one thing that The Simpsons and I.A.B have in common is that they`re always trying to push their beliefs on people. I`m pretty sure the "evidence" is disputable. That`s why this argument has gone on since Darwin`s time and still has no definite answer."

The one thing that is true about Christians is they will dispute subjects even when there is absolutely no evidence to support their dispute. THAT and THAT ALONE is why the argument has gone on for so long.
0
Reply
Male 218
Yes, boredhero, because it is more believable that some omnipotent being created the whole universe exactly as it is now.
0
Reply
Male 588
Woohoo
0
Reply
Male 108
The one thing that The Simpsons and I.A.B have in common is that they`re always trying to push their beliefs on people. I`m pretty sure the "evidence" is disputable. That`s why this argument has gone on since Darwin`s time and still has no definite answer.
0
Reply
Male 3,058
Okay... this is pretty much what happened in this scene in this episode.

Wasted post.

The mod that passed this through loses ten points. If it was Fancy, the loss is fifty points.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
stupid sexy flanders


0
Reply
Female 180
What? This was supposed to help my boredom?
0
Reply
Male 177
no you and i need sex
0
Reply
Male 295
NOT UNISEX BATHROOMS! ANYTHING BUT THAT!
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Hahaha! This was the best part of that particular episode. The rest of it was a typical creationism vs evolution battle, which I found depressing and stupid.
0
Reply
Male 39,913
0
Reply
Male 222
Not the place to discuss Evolution Vs. Creationism.
0
Reply
Male 177
u need sex
0
Reply
Male 1,021
I-A-B is really losing it. Where are the actually funny posts? What is happening to this site?

LAME
0
Reply
Female 596
Link: This Is What You`re Missing On TV, Part 114 [Pic] [Rate Link] - Stupid Flanders takes Rod and Todd to the museum, worst fears are realized.
0
Reply