There could be a non-evolution-based, non-creationism theory on life. Or many just some evolutionary agnosticism, pretentious or not.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.
[2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
There could be a non-evolution-based, non-creationism theory on life. Or many just some evolutionary agnosticism, pretentious or not.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.
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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.
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
Don't be stupid on purpose.ThatThereLazyGuy wrote:Actually, an interesting point was brought up elsewhere, but I'll point it out here: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.
Anti-evolution =/= creationism.
Also:
JOY. Another anti-religious comic. Honestly, evolution has been pretty well proven, but this stuff is just... annoying.
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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.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.
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
It didn't load properly for me at first, either.
Today, I cleared my cache, reopened my browser, and it loaded ok.
Today, I cleared my cache, reopened my browser, and it loaded ok.
- Kimra
- He-Man in a Miniskirt
- Posts: 6850
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:18 am
- Location: meanwhile elsewhere
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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!
If I deleted anything important and poignant? Colour me surprised and also: I don't care.
Cheers!
King Prawn
- Kaharz
- This Intentionally Left Blank
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:45 am
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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.KKoro wrote: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.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.
ALTERNATE REPLY
You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design.
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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.
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.
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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".You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:45 am
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
You are almost right, but bear with me here.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.
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.
- nobody
- [Insert Here]
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:36 pm
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
Surely you could use some kind of analogy using pizza or something
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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.
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.
- smiley_cow
- polite but murderous
- Posts: 6508
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:15 pm
- Location: The vast and desolate prairies
Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution
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.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.
*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.