I got really pissed off in biology this morning.
This nerdy ginger lad in my class asked my teacher about the beginning of life. And she tried to teach us that EVOLUTION IS A FACT. She started explaining all the organisms in the ocean evolving over time and all this.. I just sat there and didn’t really listen to her.
But, really? I don’t give a shit how many PHD’s she has. She has a degree in fucking yeast. YEAST. I just wanted to say,
“Really, miss? That’s so interesting? Were you actually there? You look bloody good for your age. Do you have a picture or some kind of ACTUAL evidence that you have from the time-period to prove this? NO? REALLY? WHAT BRAND NEW FUCKING INFORMATION! Sit the fuck down bitch. The only things you should have a conversation with is your yeast particles”.I’m perfectly fine with the whole evolution theory and the details behind it, but it’s when people like my fucking biology teacher who thinks she’s so amazing because she has “Dr.” written in front of her name on a certificate tries to teach it to a class as a FACT when it’s not been proven, nor disproved. I just wanted to punch her.
No one has a degree in fucking yeast. No normal person. Go back to your cave.
This would normally be the part where I calmly explain why you are mistaken, built in with trusty references and links to help you learn more information. But no, I’m not going to indulge you.
You are an idiot.
Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity
…At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Prof. Schaaffhause has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
- The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Volume 1 – by Charles Darwin
Some sort of scientists believe that if the Library of Alexandria didn’t burn down or the Dark Ages never happened, we would be 300 years advanced in technology. :>
This is depressing. l:
This isn’t something I would normally reblog on FyeahAsianHistory except this is why this blog exists. This is EXACTLY why this blog exists. Let’s put this in perspective of the very limited knowledge I have on both the Western European Middle Ages/Medieval Period/ quote “Dark Ages”, and Egypt in this time period plus everything I know about Asia as a whole.
This? This is bullshit. There’s no nice way to say it. Was the Library of Alexandria a huge, devastating loss? Absolutely. But it was “lost” more than once, and it was certainly burned before Christianity at least once and there was more than one branch of the library. Take a quick look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria there are sources saying Muslims destroyed it, and sources saying Christians ordered to have the “temple” burned down.
So on that account, it’s a load of crap. On other accounts: As any Medievalist will fervently tell you, the “Dark Ages” is a very misleading term. Loads of cool things happened during the Middle Ages in Europe. But look at Asia. Look at say, Islam which collected new libraries, brought back those “lost” Greek and Roman works, started Universities, invented the astrolabe. Look at the Silk road towards the beginning, and hell, even onwards. WHAT ABOUT THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA. India’s Chola Dynasty Maritime power. How about China’s first standing navy with “junk” ships? What about moveable type printing invented by the Chinese? Gunpowder warfare? How about a freakin’ odometer? WHAT ABOUT COFFEE? Hospitals? Female Surgeons.
Try looking up “Islamic Golden Age.” Really, just try it.
What was the “Dark Ages” for Europe (which is highly debateable) was the Golden Ages of Islam, the end of the Classical Age in Japan, and a period of awesome invention, innovation, and exploration for China and through several dynasties to boot. Say, there’s a funny little thing called “Pax Mongolica” and it lead to a lot of good things.
Listen, Europe and Christianity may have dun goofed a little, and some of the consequences will never be the same, but while they were on a bit of a downer, the OTHER HALF OF THE EURASIAN CONTINENT WAS DOING PRETTY OKAY. Really.
I run this blog because I want people to know that The West, Christianity, and Europe are not solely responsible for the successes or failures of the human race and innovation. Because I want people to know that before the Bible, there was Gilgamesh. That in the 11th century, a Japanese woman composed the world’s first novel. That people in the Islamic world translated the texts we consider so important in the Western Canon of Greek and Roman literature today. That India, Japan, China, and much of the Islamic empire all had golden/classical periods occuring during this time period. China became the first country in the world to use paper money in their banks.
Listen guys, if I want you to take away one thing, it’s that just because Europe sleeps doesn’t mean the world doesn’t make leaps and bounds.
I’m sorry for the pain that it may cause you if you watch this. Please don’t hate me.
Also, when the camera man turned and asked the bystander to give an answer, I nearly peed my pants laughing. It was so perfect.
I haven’t had many chances to address presuppositional apologetics, so this seems to be a as good of a time as any. I’m going to avoid morality for the moment, but I do find it sufficient to say that the ‘is-ought gap’ can be crossed by conditional statements. But again, that’s a conversation for another day.
Pressupositional apologetics seeks to claim that ‘truth’ is dependent on God, a transcendent being, and because atheists do not believe in God, they have no basis for a belief in logical absolutes—after all, if God does not exist, where do these absolutes come from? If the atheists claim they are just part of the material world, the apologist will ask, “Can these absolutes be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.?” When the atheist says no, the theist will claim it as their victory. Conversely, if the atheist says they are immaterial, they are admitting to an immaterial world, and a transcendent being as a matter of fact.
This, the apologist says, is the atheist’s choice: Accept God or accept Absurdism.
This, of course, is a completely contrived argument with no relevance in the actual world. Logical absolutes are descriptive statements about the things that we observe in the universe— a rock is never not a rock at the same time, for example. In general, these patterns of nature that we observe around us are referred to as the ‘Uniformity of Nature’.
Usually, people will misunderstand the laws of logic to be prescriptive, rather than descriptive, as if they are forces around matter forcing it to act one way and not the other. So, how do atheists account for the laws of logic? By recognizing them as what they are— descriptions of the patterns of the universe, the uniformity of nature.
Every law of nature is a subset of the laws of logic. The laws of logic, as I’ve said, are descriptions of patterns that we see in the universe. Mathematics is a study of abstract structures, logic being included as a subdivision.Physics is a description of the patterns of units that we see in the universe.
Logic outlines the patterns that a rock can not not be a rock at the same time. Mathematics outlines the patterns that one rock plus one rock will be two rocks, and physics outlines the pattern that a 1kg rock travelling at 1m a second will have 1 joule of energy.
Unfortunately, the Christian apologist won’t let me off the hook this easily. They have some objections to accounting for logic this way.
Objection #1: If the laws of logic are man-made, then they are merely opinion.
This strikes me as about as useful as saying that the fact of the planet’s orbiting the sun is ‘merely opinion’. Of course, this is not opinion, and neither are the laws of logic. This is because they are demonstrable in an objective, not subjective, way. A rock is a rock, and if you disagree, it isn’t just your opinion, you really are on the wrong page. It would go against everything we have ever observed.
Objection #2: How do atheists account for the laws of logic being universal?
Because, dear apologist, the laws of logic are inductive inferences, so of course we would apply them to the best of our ability. (It’s also worth nothing that they don’t work in the case of quantum physics, so they are by no means universal or absolute.)
Let’s look at Newton’s Law of Gravitation. We all know that Newton did not examine every single object in existence for his law. He took a representative sample for the apples, rocks, planets he could see, etc. He then inferred that this is how other bodies of mass work, the ones that he hasn’t observed. So, atheist can account for the universality of the laws of logic, because that’s how induction works.
To be technical, we don’t know that both the law of gravity and the laws of logic are universal. We have never come across any counter-examples, but that doesn’t mean that we never will. It’s theoretically possible that they aren’t universal, in which case this is an even worse objection.
Objection 3: How do you account for the unchanging nature of the laws of logic?
This is an easy objection to answer, because it’s asking the wrong question entirely. The laws of logic don’t change because that’s how we define the laws of nature— as things that we observe that do not change. We observe that objects with masses always, consistently observe each-other with a mathematical relationship, and that this hasn’t changed as far as we’ve seen, so we call it a law. It’s a useless question to ask why the laws of nature don’t evolve, because we have defined them, after the fact of observing, to be the things that don’t evolve.
There are more objections to come! How can a material world account for a supposedly immaterial thing like logic? If logic is a property of the physical universe, then can you measure it like things such as weight? Find out next time!
(Source: communismkills)
This is, quite simply, brilliant. A MUST read.
I don’t have the time to refute this at the moment, but rest assured, it is coming.
Scientists Answer Top Space Weather Questions Pt 1
NASA scientists answer some common questions about the sun, space weather, and how they affect the Earth. This is part one of a two-part series. It addresses: 1. What is space weather? 2. What are coronal mass ejections? 3. What are solar flares? 4. What are solar energetic particles? 5. What causes flares and CMEs?
(Source: youtube.com)
How can anyone say Facebook is better than Tumblr? Tumblr is designed for lazy people.
First we have:
And now we have:
laaacrymosa replied to your post: laaacrymosa replied to your post: laaacrymosa…
I know but nobody believes me its a drum ;_;Wait isn’t it a tambourine
(Source: thedismembermentflan)
THIS IS SO COOL OMG ASDFGHJKL;
Is anybody going to say what actually happens when you do this or just talk about how awesome it is? Because I tried it and didn’t notice any difference though this may be a sign that tumblr is slowly catching up with missing e.
