[2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderators: NeatNit, Kimra

gemeric

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by gemeric »

And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.
There could be a non-evolution-based, non-creationism theory on life. Or many just some evolutionary agnosticism, pretentious or not.

gemeric

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by gemeric »

And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.
There could be a non-evolution-based, non-creationism theory on life. Or many just some evolutionary agnosticism, pretentious or not.

calmcalamity

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by calmcalamity »

just wanted to let you all know that i saw the full comic the first time, but then when i came back it wouldn't fully load, and even though there's a new comic it still won't fully load.

stairs?

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by stairs? »

ThatThereLazyGuy wrote:
ChaoticBrain wrote:http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2703#comic

I really enjoyed this one. Zach's analogy to illustrate the circular logic of the Creationist belief system is dead-on, and the twist punchline was well-executed. This is the hardest I've laughed at SMBC in a long while.
Actually, an interesting point was brought up elsewhere, but I'll point it out here:

Anti-evolution =/= creationism.

Also:

JOY. Another anti-religious comic. Honestly, evolution has been pretty well proven, but this stuff is just... annoying.
Don't be stupid on purpose.

Guest

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by Guest »

And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.
Well, for starters, religious stances aren't necessarily creationism, creationism isn't necessarily religious, unscientific stances aren't necessarily religious, and religious stances aren't necessarily in conflict with science (which is not to say they are scientific, but if the Pope says that life can exist on other planets that doesn't make scientific reasons to believe life might exist on other planets unscientific). Any and all of these can be applied to anti-evolution =/= creationism, but my favourite is simply that the theory of evolution is not in any way incompatible with a young earth, it describes a process of speciation which is more or less common sense and it doesn't really matter to the validity of the theory how long it's had to operate.

LLama

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by LLama »

It didn't load properly for me at first, either.
Today, I cleared my cache, reopened my browser, and it loaded ok.

User avatar
Kimra
He-Man in a Miniskirt
Posts: 6853
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:18 am
Location: meanwhile elsewhere

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by Kimra »

Consider yourselves all fixed. Because man you all repeated yourselves far too many times to be amusing.

If I deleted anything important and poignant? Colour me surprised and also: I don't care.
Cheers!
King Prawn

User avatar
Kaharz
This Intentionally Left Blank
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by Kaharz »

Haven't had any problem with the comic loading in firefox. I'd copy and post it, but I'm too lazy.

As far as anti-evolution not equaling creationism... yes, that is true, but for the most part the only two theories that have any major support are evolution and creationism. It is rather nit-picky to hammer on the point that there are anti-evolution theories that are not creationism. As far as 'young earth' theories, the vast majority of the observable evidence indicates that young earth theories are wrong. Young earth theories are also often associated with creationism.

I enjoyed the comic somewhat. If it wasn't for the punchline at the end it would have been a pretty boring and trite comic though.
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.

Montero
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:45 am

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by Montero »

KKoro wrote:
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.
Well, you could have someone who is some form of existentialist and simply doesn't believe that the material world is real, you could have an extreme skeptic with a similar viewpoint (which could count as extremely paranoid science), or you could have someone who believes in Intelligent Design. Like the Catholic Church, for example.

ALTERNATE REPLY
You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design.
It is often simpler than this. Many people don't believe in evolution in the same way they don't believe in electrolysis, in neurochemistry o in quantum physics. They don't know much about these things, or don't find them relevant to their life, so they simply keep themself agnostic about them. Without malice or ideology, just because they lack of a true reliance on science.

And

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by And »

Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.

=8)-DX

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by =8)-DX »

You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design
Actually ID *is* creationism (not YEC, but it's identical to OEC), admittedly, but it's essentially just as religion-based and non-scientific. Go read about "of Pandas and people".

Montero
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:45 am

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by Montero »

And wrote:Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.
You are almost right, but bear with me here.

Suppose you ask some non-american, typical person "do you believe in evolution?"
Where I live, we may as well ask if he believe in some obscure esotherical doctrine, or in mercantilism, or in whatever. He legitimately don't know exactly what we are talking about: he don't know and even if, he wouldn't care.
Suppose we are dick and take that conversation further:
"So, do you believe in evolution?"
"Uh? What is evolution?"
"Long story short, a theory about how life forms change over time"
"How much time?"
"Say, million years"
"Man, I wasn't here million years ago. Afraid can't help."

To be fair, this qualifies as agnosticism, that's all.

User avatar
nobody
[Insert Here]
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by nobody »

Surely you could use some kind of analogy using pizza or something

And

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by And »

Montero: I'd say that qualifies as ignorance rather than agnosticism.

I don't consider my grandmother "agnostic" about computers, even though she doesn't understand how they work and doesn't care. She isn't part of any organized group which loudly rejects the "theory of computers", either.

User avatar
smiley_cow
polite but murderous
Posts: 6514
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: The vast and desolate prairies

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Post by smiley_cow »

And wrote:Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.
Actually the Catholic Church subscribes to Theistic Evolution* and they officially stand that scientific theories/discoveries regarding evolution are not in conflict with the church teachings. Since we're all splitting hairs here.

*Basically science is right, but there's still a God. And since they don't consider themselves a scientific theory but rather a philosophical way of reconciling religion and science, I'm not particularly bothered by it.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.

Locked