this post was submitted on
625 points (63% like it)
1,465 up votes 840 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,031,323 readers

Help victims of the Aurora shootings

Help victims of the Sikh shootings

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

624
625

How the world was created (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by CommanderBadass

all 123 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old
best

[–]echobod 26 points27 points ago

Fuck Atheism, I'm gonna be Norse.

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 4 points5 points ago

Poison and Frost? Fuckin-A, thats a badass God.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Yep! Yep! Shammir!

[–]Dinokknd 0 points1 point ago

http://macskeptic.com/i/gt/u/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/thor-thumb.jpg

[–]bonino90 5 points6 points ago

Aye! Get the beer, food, wenches and black metal! Valhalla next stop.

[–]pawner150 3 points4 points ago

By the power of Odin we shall be victorious!! We shall join our Nordic brothers and sisters and rock out to bands like Amon Amarth and feast on meat and drink waters of the gods!

[–]Odin24 1 point2 points ago

To Valhalla!

[–]seniorpantaloons 2 points3 points ago

I have a plan for if I ever come to own a school. I'll open up a fund to accept donations from people named Valerie, and use that fund to add two sections to the school: Val Hall A (the spaces on the sign will be minimal at best) and Val Hall B. Norse mythology and culture will be taught in Val Hall A.

[–]woundedgod 0 points1 point ago

It isn't correct!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Welcome, friend.

[–]shovik 9 points10 points ago

That Hindu creation myth is not in the Vedas. Rig Veda 10:129 states

"Who really knows, and who can swear, How creation came, when or where! Even gods came after creation’s day, Who really knows, who can truly say When and how did creation start? Did He do it? Or did He not? Only He, up there, knows, maybe; Or perhaps, not even He."

[–]bonsmoth 5 points6 points ago

with a little rearranging this could sound like dr suess

[–]Zenkin 4 points5 points ago

Thank you for this. This infographic is more insulting than anything. I am an atheist, and I understand it, but most people are attacking other religions with absolutely no knowledge about it. Hinduism, as I learned it, teaches that the universe always has been, and it always will be.

[–]shovik 2 points3 points ago

I'm glad an atheist understands this. Hinduism also acknowledges atheism as a valid pathway in life.

[–]hkriest 1 point2 points ago

Whoever makes these should learn to get the "facts" straight. You who choose to make these infographics are not going to convince anyone by not knowing exactly what it is you are debating against!

[–]SimilarImage 35 points36 points ago

Age User Title Reddit Cmnt Points
4 months eastrod How was the world created? here 398 1057
1 month drjeeves How the world was created. here 125 606
2 months Dudesan How the Universe was Created, according to several belief systems. here 39 206

This is an automated response

FAQ | Send Feedback | Report Error

[–]Blind0ne 8 points9 points ago

Saving images with text as a PNG will result in a clearer image.

[–]i_know_that_feel_man -3 points-2 points ago

zoom in

[–]Jazzspasm 11 points12 points ago

Hi - after lurking, I just joined Reddit to comment on this. Right off the bat, thanks for including the Norse religion. It's great to get some, ANY recognition and yes, you guessed right, I'm religious and I follow the Nordic pantheon. I thought I'd help you a bit by pointing out a couple of things. In a nutshell, anyone that reads the Edda's (and a whole load of other Sagas, poems, etc) and thinks that it's exactly how it is and all fact is frankly out of their sad mind. The Poetic and Prose Edda were written in 1200CE sometime by a Christian nobleman. Nuff said. I mean, really - who'd take it as fact once they knew that?

Firstly, they were written to record stories that were told around the fireplace (looong winter nights), an oral tradition falling into the category of myths and legends. Think along the lines of King Arthur, or ancient Greece with its Jason and the Golden Fleece. We all know it's a story, but within those stories are things that resonate deep inside our minds and make them valuable to us as a society. Karl Jung had a similar concept when he discussed archetypes.

Secondly, followers of the Nordic system (those who aren't insane) don't deny scientific fact in the way some religions do. We know that humans were descended from primates, spread out from the African savana, and recognise that much of our language and myths have a great deal in common with other civilisations elsewhere as a result of that.

Here are some examples of scientific awareness in the ancient Nordic myths:

Frost Giants = the Ice Age. Can you imagine being in Scandinavia in c.8,000BCE and trying to deal with that shit? You'd personify the destruction. The frost giants are the opposite of creation (Spring, Summer, life, food and water etc)

Gunningagap = the emptiness pre Big Bang before fire meets ice (fire, not poison - sorry to have to make another correction, mate), creating a massive physical reaction out of which the universe as we know it appears (so far as we do know it).

Grotte, the mill at the centre of the universe where giants (you've heard of gas giants, right?) are thrown in and worlds are created = Black Holes at the centre of each galaxy.

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea - within the myths are things that hold very tightly to reality and reason. Science isn't the enemy of the Nordic faith. Darwin is our friend. Anyone that doesn't accept evolutionary theory is a butt head.

Basically, the Eddas are myth but contain truths, put into songs, warped and morphed over thousands of generations so they could be passed on, and if taken with a pinch of salt, a sense of humour and a questioning mind can reveal some really cool stuff that doesn't conflict with scientific evidence. The Edda belong in the fiction section, but that doesn't stop them from being a powerful source of ancient knowledge.

And yes, the Gods and Goddesses of the Asir are alive and well to me. Believing in 'that which is other' doesn't stop reality from being real. Anyone that can't accept reality (Newton, Einstein, Copernicus, etc) need putting in a special room, perhaps with some colouring books and crayons.

TL;DR - My advice for your excellent infograph would be to change "It's in the Edda" to "It's a fireside story translated by a Christian wannabe politician - get back to brewing ale!" because, besides Bjork, we've got great beer! :)

...Now I have to go and read the FAQ and learn what I did wrong here

[–]burtonmkz 2 points3 points ago

I bet you can't wait to see The Avengers.

[–]Jazzspasm 3 points4 points ago

No shit - our God has a hammer. The other guy got nailed :o)

[–]Jazzspasm 1 point2 points ago

And Scarlett Johannson - good Nordic stock right there, bud

[–]burtonmkz 0 points1 point ago

If people believed that Thor from the movies was real, to your religion would that be like what Mormonism is to Christianity?

[–]Jazzspasm 0 points1 point ago

Good question. Thor in the movies, Marvel, is a long way from Thor, the Hammer God, but it's a start (any publicity is good publicity type concept). You'd be surprised how many of our childhood fairy tales, nursery rhymes come from the Nordic theism stories (Sleeping Beauty, Jack and Jill went up the hill, etc). I don't know enough about Mormonism, but from what I know, I wish them all the best of luck. And any American's that vote for him. And all Americans if he wins.

[–]woundedgod 0 points1 point ago

Welcome to Reddit, make sure to check our the Norse and Asatru subreddits, even though they are very quiet!

The biggest question is hard polytheism versus soft polytheism, and is one that comes up pretty often in Asatru and other reconstructionist faith.

In the Asatru community the larger "Universalist" heathen community tends to be soft polytheist, accepting that the Gods are archtypes or heroic figure types and Eddic lore are based on a situations they needed to explain. Without science they made their own answers.

The "Folkish" form of heathenry tends to be more hard poly and views the Gods as living beings and our ancient Kin, and support the creation myth as Christians would support their own.

I, am a Heathen. I honor my ancestors, the spirits of the land(We must nurture that which nurtures us) and the Gods. I understand, however, that the Gods were creations of my ancestors that they needed to keep the shadows of a dark night at bay. Thor will not be chasing any Frost Giants from Midgard this day. When a warrior dies he will not be honored in Valhalla.

I consider myself culturally Pagan, and identify as one though the reality is understand science and am a nontheist.

[–]Jazzspasm 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for the pointer matey and thanks for the welcome!

I'm familiar with the difference between universal and folkish, but being the only Asatru I know IRL, it's not like I've had a chance to debate, discuss etc. It's nice to know there's a community on here, even if quiet :o)

[–]nukefudge -1 points0 points ago

nope, i wouldn't call any of that "scientific awareness". but you did a great job of likening stuff you found to some other stuff out there in the science departments, i guess. or rather: i think your enthusiasm is getting the better of you here ;)

Believing in 'that which is other' doesn't stop reality from being real. Anyone that can't accept reality (Newton, Einstein, Copernicus, etc)

"that which is other", is that a translation of some kind? what do you mean? and which reality excactly are you talking about here... are you using "reality" in 2 different senses in these two sentences?

also, this being r/atheism, i think your "propaganda", as it were, is an ill fit. but don't let that stop you from enjoying reddit :) also, you seem nice enough, and i think i'm nice enough, so don't take this the wrong way.

[–]Jazzspasm 1 point2 points ago

hi there, and thanks for the welcome :o) I'm sorry if this came across as propaganda. I genuinly don't wish anyone to think I have any intention of making people believe my odd shit. I just thought I'd join in the debate - and certainly not from the viewpoint of defending my faith, either.

Rather, I saw the 'poison and ice' in the OP's well constructed piece, along with the 'It's in the Edda' - just wanted to say that we don't take the Edda as pure fact, and to correct the 'poison' quote to 'fire'.

'That which is other' is meant to mean the realms of awareness other than the physical as perceived by our 5 senses. I guessed that's a different debate and off topic from the original thread, so I shortened it.

As far as my use of the word 'reality', my first use would be in terms of that which can be proved. I have experience of that which can't, but that's the nature of the subjective. It's my experience, and I wouldn't say other people are wrong because they haven't experienced it.

If my comment came across as me trying to convert or any of that horrible shit, I'm sorry. I hate being told what to think, and if I came across that way at all, please accept my apology.

ps - and thanks again for the welcome to Reddit :o)

[–]nukefudge 0 points1 point ago

correctness is indeed a virtue, in fact or fiction alike. ;)

a bunch of things popped up now.

awareness other than the physical as perceived by our 5 senses

this sounds iffy. i recognize that a lot of people think like this, but the thing is: they don't have to. and yeah it would probably take a good while to run through a conversation about that. to start with, depending on which material you are basing this on, the number 5 seems a bit low.

As far as my use of the word 'reality', my first use would be in terms of that which can be proved

then i don't get your use of it in the second sentence. wouldn't the guys in parentheses be excactly the kind we're looking for, when it comes to proofs?

I have experience of that which can't, but that's the nature of the subjective. It's my experience

see, this is another thing. experience doesn't have to be understood as "private". but i guess that's hard to swallow (at first, anyway) for people of the subjective/objective-, internal/external-mindset. i wouldn't say anything was consolidated before it became something we can share and understand together. even when we're alone we're in the presence of others (that's the social dimension for ya.)

btw. i'm rather new myself, and i just love typing stuff into text boxes!

[–]Jazzspasm 0 points1 point ago

soon, I'll figure out how to do the line beside the quote thing.

Also, please forgive if I understand the context of your questions incorrectly :o)

You're spot on saying there are many that think like I do and that i don't have to. That doesn't make anything incorrect in itself. I like cheese with my pasta, my friend doesn't. It's everyone's choice. It doesn't mean we can't sit around the same table. Cheesy pasta nom nom

As for the 5 senses, I'm referring to sight, sound, taste, touch & smell. I'd say that we have more senses. Random suggestion: I'm looking forward to folk better scientifically trained than I to establish time as a measurable dimension and relate it to psychology. I think it'll be a while, but it's there for the taking. Nobel prize winning stuff, if someone can break us out of 5 senses with any kind of measurable standard.

For the likes of Newton, Einstein, etc, I wasn't disputing them. I'm saying if people can't accept Newton's theory of universal gravity or Einstein's relativity principles (provable, again and again and again) based on a story that involves flying horses or talking walls (fairy tales) or whatever, then they aren't really going to contribute to the evolution of our species. If in doubt, go with the side that's provable in fact and measurable evidence.

Regarding the difference between subject and objective, the difference between self and other is what that's all about, surely? This weather is hot, says the guy from Alaska. No, it's cold, says the guy from Texas. Which one is right? Neither, of course - it's purely subjective. The objective view would be it's nDegrees farenheit. That might be objective, but it doesn't remove the subjective either.

Now I'm way off the OP's topic! I bow out.

And I know what you mean by text boxes... :)

Bed now - I'm in the UK, so it's late with Monday ahead. Thanks once more and hopefully catch you again :)

[–]nukefudge 0 points1 point ago*

fortunately, off-topic doesn't matter. =) hint for quoting: press the "formatting help" text beneath the box.

That doesn't make anything incorrect in itself

well, now, you see... sometimes it's not just a matter of "tomato tomato" - what it comes down to is methodology, i'd say. in a very practical way, we need to be aware of how we arrive at the conclusions we draw - the opinions we form, the convictions we stand by. it's not just done by saying "well that's how i feel and that's that". that's misunderstood individualism, IMO.

as for senses, i was thinking about something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

time as a measurable dimension and relate it to psychology

this sounds... interesting. and a bit weird :D myself, i tend to think away from the spatialization of time - i'm actually trying to do away with this sort of metaphor (which i think it is). we could do without - it's one of those cases where we posit something that we could never know about, making it a vacuous concept - i'd say.

if people can't accept [...] based on a story that involves flying horses or talking walls

i'm unsure what you mean with this part. please elaborate :) (see? i'm drawing you back to the thread, like a moth to a flame... ho ho)

the difference between subject and objective

thing is, this distinction has a history. it's not something that is given without possibility to question it. it fits neatly with scientism (i think we can call it that): that science is the REAL real, and everything else is just trying to be. in that sense, what objective amounts to is what we can measure with technology, and jot down... and the sense of subjectivity that you employed is more of a value/preference sense than any real ontological (or even metaphysical?) sense...

now, having studied a bit of phenomenology, i think there are better ways of approaching these concepts. or rather, there are ways of talking about our being in the world that doesn't have to rely on this worn-out distinction. "the social dimension" (i'll call it that) is supposed to bring our attention to the fact that even though we might come to think of ourselves as isolated cores, reaching out for one another in vain, and never really grasping our true surroundings - we can instead focus on the reality/validity of all our ties to each other and the world around us, or rather, that we are placed in the world solidly, not by some vain effort, and that we actually make up the world instead of just being visitors, ever at a distance from the core...

hmm, my words falter. i haven't phrased this in english properly yet, i should dedicate some more space to it. but not here. suffice to say, my "project" is meant to rid us of the hopelessness of these old and tired concepts. i wish to make us real again, and connect us with ourselves, each other, and everything else. because we're here, and there, and everywhere! yay a rhyme :P

UK? i'm only one hour away ;) DK

[–]Jazzspasm 0 points1 point ago

Hey there bud - I just discovered 'inbox', so my apologies for being tardy.

Hurrah for being an hour away from the UK - hopefully you're on the sunny side, instead of rain rain rain. And a great big thank you for pointing out the formating help. One day I shall not be a noob. One day.... when I am much older and a bit more farty

ok - I'll try and respond to some of your well thought out points:

tomato/tomato, there are others that think like I do, and I don't have to I agree that I appear to conform my thinking to others, merely repeat the same thing as others but with a different flavour. I considered myself as spiritual, but not religious. I got bitten out of the blue by diety and without any prompting from others. When I got to find out more about the diety that had arrived, I thought "You've GOT to be kidding me with this shit". As it happens, the odd little corner I inhabit is about as obscure as it gets (Nordic Tradition thing), so in no way do I feel that I'm being the same as others. I'm the only person I know who's into this. I'm certainly not following anyone else's lead. There's no church or temple for me and nobody I can talk to about it who could possibly understand. Of course, you are ok to view my religion as that religion, all religions are the same because it's religion. My response would be that my religion accepts gays, women are equal, getting drunk is fine as long as you don't let yourself down and it's fine to shout "Fuck you!" to the God/esses (We think of them as BFFL). There's a sense of freedom in that. And it's not Catholic Church Says Going To Hell For Having Dirty Thoughts crap. So yes, there IS a difference. It's more a case of Tomato/Potato :o)

Senses! There are 5 physical senses we're all familiar with. The mind is the sixth sense and recognises concepts like time, for example. You have woken up thirty seconds before your alarm clock went off, yes? I did a degree at University in psychology, and couldn't find any papers to genuinely explain this phenomenon. Admittedly, that was in the early 1990's. I haven't kept up with any current papers on the topic. Biological clock? etc etc Recognising time as part of the sensory experience was one part of my 'awakening' that there was something else going on that science hadn't yet confronted. To make a point, I LOVE IT when scientists open doors like that. Such as..

the difference between subject and objective Love! Braveheart Dawkins is married. I for one would like for him to come out and say that his love can't be measured, reproduced by others exactly in order to prove it's validity. I cheer him on in his journey to challenge those of us that think there is a plane of existence above and beyond what can be factored. Love is purely subjective, along with many other things we experience as homosapiens. Nobody else will know how we feel. My experience is MY experience and your experience is YOUR experience. We don't share the same body, and while we can share experiences, they won't be exactly the same.

And yet . .

"the social dimension" implies the shared experience of humanity. Indeed, it goes beyond that - we love cats and dogs, we weep for dead dolphins and abhor cruelty to animals. We relate to them. Closer still, I'm a bloke. Why would I care about women? I'm white, why should I care about blacks or asians? I'm this or that, why should I care about those that aren't exactly like me? It's because we all share an experience and understand pain, love, hope, despair and how it feels for others. To not do so is a failure in to progress pyschologically past early childhood (concepts of empathy).

On a different note, I didn't used to be religious untill very recently, but I have been spiritual for about 20 years (yes, there is a difference). One thing I admire, require, urge and demand is that others challenge me in my beliefs. If my belief struggles, then it needs reexamining, and while scientism doesn't have all the answers yet.

Religion that denies the evidence of science does not stand up. I recognise that I could, indeed, be completely delusional and hallucianting wildly when I feel the presence of 'other' - hey: I've got a university degree in psychology and know quite a bit about abmornal psychology. I question my own experiences constantly, but I DO welcome them as subjective experiences that can't be reproduced in the laboratory.

Think of it like a bungee jump - "Wohooooo! This is GREAT!" - I wouldn't try to talk anyone else into doing it, and you can't explain the feeling in words. And nobody else knows except those that have been there.

Faoucalt's pendulum must have blown a lot of people's minds. I hope the LHC will prove that dark matter shows 3 dimentions isn't all there is. GO SCIENCE!! :o)

[–]Jazzspasm 0 points1 point ago

oh I fucked up the tabs

I am noob

[–]nukefudge 0 points1 point ago

i'll work with it ;)

My response would be that my religion accepts gays, women are equal, getting drunk is fine as long as you don't let yourself down and it's fine to shout "Fuck you!" to the God/esses (We think of them as BFFL) [...] And it's not Catholic Church Says Going To Hell For Having Dirty Thoughts crap

yes, these are certainly a different sort of values from the other more popular choices (at least if you're not into cherrypicking your religion). but still... values don't need gods. values just need to be thought through, and maintained - for me, the extra dimension of "divinity" is completely uncecessary.

There are 5 physical senses we're all familiar with. The mind is the sixth sense

this was my point: scientifically speaking, it's a bit different. 5+whatever else you fancy, quite often to be considered very special doesn't really cut it.

Love! [...] scientism

here's where it gets important! thing is, given scientistic attitudes, it's easy to forget that there are several other ways of speaking of "the world", and some of them don't even entail religion. i agree that love can't be measured as such, but we can still address the phenomenon. it doesn't have to be in the "scientism attitude", i'm totally down with that. often, atheism and scientism go hand in hand. i don't think that's healthy.

I question my own experiences constantly, but I DO welcome them as subjective experiences that can't be reproduced in the laboratory

in the end, it's a matter of interpretation, habitual so. not that i'm undermining the joy you're getting from your experience. but some would choose to not tack on anything "divine" when they run into something they can't quite explain, or haven't quite had happen before. the application of ideas... it's a big deal how it's done :)

anyways... may i commend you on your positive attitude, sir! some people get all bitey when it gets a bit personal ;)

[–]Jazzspasm 0 points1 point ago

Hey there!

Yeah, I know what you mean about values not needing Gods/religion etc. It kinda hacks me off that this is even a debate. Morals and values don't come from religion, but from being a member of society, from having parents or mentors.

Where divinity for me has been helpful is to put this life into a bit of context and that context was specifically Odinist: Life is supposed to be shitty. Being really challenged makes us grow and evolve, and if we overcome the challenges with our dignity intact, we come out the other side as greater. There's an analogy I thought of that a place of change (our moments of personal evolution) is like being between a hammer and an anvil - the old is destroyed, but it creates something new, better, stronger, useful at the same time, and typically that process is painful. We can then pass that experience and knowledge gained from challenge on to others.

Of course, that understanding could be found without 'divine', but for me it wasn't until I started reading the Nordic poems and something clicked for me. If someone can learn that stuff without divine, that's cool and totally possible. It just didn't happen for me.

If any of this sounds like I'm preaching or some crap, please don't take it that way. I'm basically agreeing with you and also trying to put my point forward that as far as I'm concerned, there's very little conflict. The only difference as far as I'm concerned, is that I get to some of my 'added' values via my religion. Those 'added' values are open to people without religion. I just got to mine via the specific platform that came my way.

If someone gets cancer or wins the lottery, that's not divine intervention, that's life. It's how you deal with it that counts, and for me, my beliefs give me a set of tools that help me deal with and understand my place in the scheme of things a little better. Those tools are perfectly accessible and useable to people without my beliefs.

Oh, and thanks for the positive attitude compliment. I don't really discuss my religion with anyone, anyone at all, and I consider it something personal to me and not relevant to others. In fact, after what the Christians did to my ancestors and any beliefs other than theirs, religious, scientific or otherwise, I'm very hesitant to even discuss it with anyone ever.

I don't think I necessarily have a good attitude, but I do know there are a lot of idiots out there. Thanks for engaging with me.

You know, if I had to choose between having dinner in a room of atheists or in a room of devoutly religious people, I'd choose the atheists. I think you know why ;o)

Right - it's the end of the week, and I'm going for a pint!

[–]Infinator10 7 points8 points ago*

The Big Bang Theory doesn't explain how the world was created. It describes its early development after it was created came into existence.

Edit: The " was created "

[–]Jujutacular 0 points1 point ago

It doesn't describe development after creation. It describes development after the universe came into existence.

[–]Infinator10 0 points1 point ago

Aah, okay. Ill edit that

[–]Admiral_Amsterdam 1 point2 points ago*

and was also proposed by a catholic monk, right?

Edit: I'm not incorrect

[–]duvakiin 1 point2 points ago

i like how shinto is all self centered and what not

[–]two_canoes 1 point2 points ago

Oh science, let's see here... mhmm, mhmm TOO LONG DIDN'T READ goin with Judaism

[–]janosaudron 1 point2 points ago

Naruto just made a little more sense to me now that I read the Shinto genesis (Izanagi & Izanami)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Okay, okay, fine. But if the world wasn't held up by Yggdrasil, what keeps Midgard from falling into Ginungagap?

[–]zachary87921 3 points4 points ago

The last one is a theory. The rest are hypothies that didn't pan out.

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 5 points6 points ago

a hypothesis has to be based on a preliminary observation. those ones are just... musings

[–]Autistic_Buiscit 2 points3 points ago

Not chinese 'myth,' as much as the rest of them are, but the word you're looking for is taoism.

[–]imatumar 0 points1 point ago

Nope. Chinese mythology. Taoism does not even have a creation story.

Actually, the inclusion of the yin and yang bothers me, since the yin and yang, while a concept in general Chinese beliefs, is strictly a Taoist symbol and does not represent Chinese mythology/religion as a whole.

Taoism is properly not even a theistic religion. It's only recently that people have lumped Taoism and Chinese Traditionalism into one religion. It used to just be that you practiced two or three different but compatible religions, but ancestor-worship and the traditional Chinese pantheon (Jade Emperor, old dynastic emperors, etc.) have been associated with Taoism as it has evolved in the modern day.

Originally, Taoism was much like Confucianism; it wasn't really a religion. just a set of philosophies. There are still plenty of people (myself included) who practice Taoism without believing in the Traditional Pantheon, ancestor-worship, or any deity.

[–]Autistic_Buiscit 1 point2 points ago

Ah sorry XD was looking at the symbols only, and they didn't fit, so I assumed the wrong-thanks for the education, I learn something new (nearly) every day.

[–]imatumar 0 points1 point ago

Understandable. That's why I was kind of miffed about the yin and yang being there.

Glad I could teach you something!

[–]Parrot132 4 points5 points ago

Needs work. For example, you're bound to get called out when you say "life on Earth progressed and evolved" without saying anything about how it began in the first place.

[–]Aidinthel 0 points1 point ago

No one knows anything about abiogenesis, so it can't be included. We don't want to mix hypotheses into our theories; it could hurt our credibility.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Just because YOU don't know anything about abiogenesis doesn't mean other people don't. There is plenty of revolutionary work occurring in the field. A few years ago chemists discovered a previously unknown reaction that resulted in the creation of nucleotides from component molecules that existed on primordial earth. The reason the reaction escaped previous researchers was because the component molecules rearranged themselves in an unexpected way to form the nucleotide, making it very difficult to backwards engineer the possible component molecules.

[–]YaDshu 3 points4 points ago

SIGH This is so biased. For atheism you could put "It says so in a textbook"... Seriously, I'm an atheist, but you guys are slightly very stupid

[–]P4RAD0X 2 points3 points ago

I thought the exact same thing. The list of evidence under Science is really a list of effects we have observed and tried to explain and understand, but we are really as much in the dark about the outer world as before. We might know a little bit more, but still.

When we start talking about billions of years, it might as well have been forever to a human.

[–]Thinks_Reddit_Is_RPG 0 points1 point ago

I find this very ironic.

[–]idontcare111 0 points1 point ago

How were day and night created two days before the sun. Isn't a day based on the earth's revolution of the sun? So how were the first two days even days if there was no sun to revolve around.......

[–]Paimun 0 points1 point ago

If the world is so complex, then why is there always an easy religious "explanation" for its creation? "God pointed his finger and made light in a day", as opposed to the long list of carefully tested scientific evidence behind the origin of the universe. Something smells fishy here.

[–]P4RAD0X 0 points1 point ago

These are terribly dumbed-down versions of religious stories of creation.

Just like that last one is a dumbed-down version of the scientific myth of creation.

[–]Paimun 1 point2 points ago

...Scientific myth? Of creation?

What. ಠ_ಠ

[–]P4RAD0X 0 points1 point ago

http://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-An-Adventure-Mind-Spirit/dp/0553375407

Just because.

[–]Flemer 0 points1 point ago

I see it a lot when people are saying religion is stupid because they can't back anything up whit rational statistics I think people lurn a lot from religion and it's motivating them. Like for example this other post on reddit someone said that god makes his alarm go of in the morning and the other guy said it's the electrics that made it go off and thats because off....and...and...magnetic field around the earth. if there was no religion I think there would be so mutch selfish basterds on this world

[–]jammastajayt 0 points1 point ago

I posted this 4 months ago. http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/n9cls/how_the_earth_was_created/

[–]woundedgod 0 points1 point ago

The Norse version is wrong.

[–]hellar420 0 points1 point ago

nice

[–]orthag 0 points1 point ago

The Shinto creation myth describes the formation of planets quite well in simple terms. The lighter elements create the atmosphere while the heavier elements form the planet itself.

[–]AntiEmo 0 points1 point ago

You're forgetting Lilith

[–]KevinB27ny 0 points1 point ago*

Hello Im new to reddit and I dont want to start a war or anything, but what is with you non-believers? When your life is over you believe you're done? Wouldn't you rather have the hope of eternal life after death instead of absolute death? What is the point of coming up with some scientific explanation if the outcome is always just eternal death. I believe religion gives people hope and peace of the mind. My life has structure and meaning because I know dying isnt the end, and I can go on living when Jesus comes again. I dont want to start an argument, and Im not telling you my religion is better than others,but taking up a religion instead of believing your existence on this earth was caused by accidental chemical reactions isnt a bad idea. By the way Im not a brainwashed idiot like you make us out to be.

[–]NeoBlueArchon 0 points1 point ago

Its a bit odd and also intriguing I think that there are many similarities between the creation stories. The norse askr and embla and the jewish adam and eve. Prometheus Lucifer and Loki all passed down divine knowledge to the humans they're pro-human entities that a lot of religions represent.

[–]JustFinishedBSG 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry but the "proof" part of the science column is full of shit. It seems that the creator of this image just threw all the big science words he knew to say " science fuck yeah!"

[–]P4RAD0X 1 point2 points ago

This is so biased it is actually sickening.

[–]neodymiumex 0 points1 point ago

Out of curiosity, which part is wrong?

[–]P4RAD0X -1 points0 points ago

These religions don't use their books as evidence, most of them use stories that have been handed down from generation to generation, or they use evidence from the world they have seen around them. The books were written much later than the first time the stories were told, and as you can guess, mistranslations and misspellings were as abundant then as they are now.

Just as a scientist wouldn't use any generic science textbook as evidence, they would cite various experiments that were performed during human history.

This is obviously an ignorant, biased and purely idiotic attempt to hold science above religion, where in most cases religion is not trying to compete with science at all. In rare cases where one sect of a religion, or one preacher or priest from one sect in an obscure area is trying to compete with science as the answer to life's great question of where we are from, those who are smart enough will know that they cannot get that from one person.

This is the other side of the coin of idiotic, fear-possessed religious people bashing science. Now we have ill-educated atheists disrespecting the cultural traditions of most of the world. Yet the lack of understanding is so deep, the maker of this diagram probably doesn't know the religions he's missing, without having to check a wikipedia page first. Notice no African religion is mentioned.

TL,DR; I just watched God Bless America, sorry if this is mostly just pissed off rant.

[–]neodymiumex 1 point2 points ago

As an American, the majority of my interaction with religion comes from Christian Fundamentalists, who typically do take their religious text as a literal truth. I think this is geared more towards those kinds of people. I don't know very much about many of the religions it mentions, but I'm assuming that each of them has at least one sect that insists on taking certain aspects of their holy text as literally true.

You mention scientists not using any generic textbook as evidence but rather citing experiments as the evidence. This is certainly true, but you can't do the same thing with religion because there is no evidence for the majority of the claims made in these holy texts. In some cases there are entire cities mentioned that we have no evidence ever existed, let alone individual people and any singular action they may have undertaken. There is no experiment I could go out and repeat to prove that god created everything in six days. In fact I could go out and do a series of experiments that would provide evidence that this didn't happen.

You seem to be implying that all religious texts should be ignored as false, but that we should accept that a god exists anyway. That's an incredible claim to be making. Similar to the invisible dragon that I keep locked up in my garage.

[–]P4RAD0X 1 point2 points ago

I'm sorry that you have to deal with Fundamentalists, but if you don't like someone, you don't have to buy in to their gig, at all. There is great power in knowing you do not ever have to talk to some people.

Again, you are misunderstanding something. Religions do not make claims that are provable because they aren't trying to prove anything, they're trying to understand something, be it gods or the universe or what have you*. Science is different. Man perform fantastic experiments- not to understand the universe or gods, but to prove to himself that he is god. *The large majority of religions. There are many scientific views which could be compared to as counterparts to Christian Fundamentalists.

You cannot create an experiment that replicates the big bang, either. Or even that life began on Earth after agglomeration formed the planet, without some external unknown bringing water to the surface of the Earth.. So don't tell me that science is right and religion is wrong. You have as much empirical ground to stand on as any traditional religious person does.

I am not implying any such thing, other than that one human life is a small lens from which to weigh the entire cosmos. Even every human life that has come into being, certainly over 100 billion, is an infinitesimally blinded view.

Let people be. So you don't believe in god? Cool beans. Don't be an Atheist Fundamentalist. Science is a belief system, like any other.

[–]neodymiumex -1 points0 points ago

Obviously I don't "buy into their gig". Unfortunately I do have to talk and interact with these lunatics on a daily basis. These people even are allowed to make laws that attempt to force their beliefs on to me. I would be content with leaving them alone if they were only kind enough to return the favor. Since they aren't, I have little choice but to argue for my viewpoint in return.

Science is a belief system, like any other.

Except that science isn't a belief system. Period. A belief system would imply that you have to take something on faith. The beauty of science is that you don't have to take anything on faith. Any aspect of science that I question I could go out and perform experiments in order to satisfy my objections. Science is, by definition, repeatable and testable.

Now, there are certain hypotheses in science that we don't yet have a good way of testing. This doesn't mean they are automatically right or wrong, it just means that some one has come up with a possible explanation for an observed phenomenon. The difference between science and religion at this point is that when someone does finally come up with a good test for the hypothesis, if the test shows the hypothesis made a correct prediction, then the hypothesis gains support within the scientific community. If the test shows the hypothesis made an incorrect prediction, the hypothesis is modified or thrown out as being incorrect. In religion, the exact opposite seems to happen. In religion, the starting point is the explanation. Then evidence is found to support that explanation. When something comes along that proves the explanation is not correct, well, apparently the devil planted the evidence in order to mislead us.

I am not implying any such thing, other than that one human life is a small lens from which to weigh the entire cosmos. Even every human life that has come into being, certainly over 100 billion, is an infinitesimally blinded view.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Could you elaborate? You seem to be saying that since I am small, something bigger must be out there. I don't see how you make the leap.

[–]P4RAD0X 0 points1 point ago

I honestly do not see how acts of legislation really effect a normal person's life, day to day. Unless you live in the deep south. In which case I would say, "Why the fuck do you live there?!"

Science is a belief system. It is in fact possibly one of the most blinded belief systems, because it makes use of the part of your brain which justifies the world with empirical evidence. The most fundamental aspects of physics, such as gravity, are not understood whatsoever. We can only explain its effect, and show how SOME objects act under its force, by use of an added constant. When masses get larger, we have this unseeable thing called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that holds everything together. Some other type of particle that we cannot explain AT ALL. You do have to take a lot on faith to be a scientist.

You assume that the human mind is complete enough to understand the universe. You understand evolutionary theory, yes? Under what circumstances would it be advantageous for a species to fully understand the entirety of the universe? I think we are attempting something with science that humans are by definition not biologically capable of doing. And therefor we have major gaps in understanding. Science by no means gives a complete explanation of the universe, as I'm sure you know.

The scientific community is as dogma-based as the religious community. Have you heard of a physicist called Nassim Haramein? He proposed something very questioning of the scientific community, and was mocked for his challenging of the foundation of science. He suggested that we go back to the drawing board, basically. When one calculates the density of a meter squared of the vacuum, the mathematics show it to be infinite. Using this density, he calculated what the rest mass of an electron in an atom should be, given that our universe has a density that can be plotted to show every object lying on the same line. He did this, actually, and showed that our current mass for an electron was greatly below the plotted line for every other object in the universe. So his hypothesis was this: We are not accounting for our observational methods in our scientific practices, that when we collide an electron out of orbit, there are many changes it goes through that make it entirely different from when it was in the atom system.

He applied this on a larger scale, saying that these larger objects with "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" enveloping them are in fact the effects we are seeing on a larger scale of the infinite density of the vacuum adding to the mass of the energy of the systems of these galactic clusters and things like that, since most of mass is empty space, or vacuum, and the vacuum has infinite density, so a system with a LOT of mass, such as a galactic cluster would hold not only a lot of mass, but a LOT of empty space of infinite density, and would therefor appear much heavier than the mass would lead us to think.

He was ridiculed for his preposterous ideas, and the assumption machine of science goes marching on, in search of 10 dimensions and particles that don't interact with anything.

Again, you assumed that I am trying to say that god exists. I am not trying to say that. All that I'm trying to say is that science is just as flawed as the belief systems this original post is bashing, and that there's no way for us to really know what is going on out there, so it's simply idiotic to say that your belief system is better than any other, because you're right, we are small. We are REALLY FUCKING small. So small that in fact none of this actually matters, so we mine as well enjoy each other's company and diversity. If someone offends you, who is from another religion or whatever, tell them that they offend you. Don't make it about what belief their human brain has clung to.

So you don't believe in god, or gods? No one gives a fuck, man. There are 7 billion of us. We have to start getting along if we want to get off of this planet and explore the badassness that is the universe.

[–]neodymiumex 0 points1 point ago

I don't know anything about Nassim Haramein, but based on a quick search and after reading this it seems like he is some guy, with no real understanding of physics or math, with no experimental evidence whatsoever, who is making fantastic claims that are easily disproved. Why should he be taken seriously by the scientific community at large? This is how science works. When you make a claim that flies in the face of our current understanding of the way the world works, the burden of proof is most certainly on you.

Once again, science is not a belief system. It is not a belief system because it is testable and independently verifiable. When I can see something with my own eyes, I no longer need belief to agree with it. If you are trying to make some claim about how I am actually in the Matrix right now and so I can't trust my senses, I think that's as far as we need to go. That is the realm of philosophy. It is not a testable hypothesis and therefore it is not science.

[–]P4RAD0X 0 points1 point ago

He presented in front of the scientific community a hypothesis based on evidence that was found in experiment and ignored by another group of physicists. Those who shot him down were afraid of change to their belief system of science. It's called dogma.

It is clear to me that you don't really get what I'm trying to say, which is okay I guess. You wouldn't expect a Christian Fundamentalist to understand the first time you told them they were clinging to a belief system.

I have said nothing about the Matrix, nor that you couldn't trust your senses.

I was proposing that human life is by definition incapable of understanding the entirety of existence, and that instead of ridiculing and ignorantly shit-talking other belief systems, people should take a look at theirs and see that they are just as flawed as those they attempt to ridicule.

You seem to have a problem understanding that although I am criticizing a person who shares the same belief system as you, I am not doing so to support another belief system. It's okay, this is common in fundamentalists of all kinds of belief systems- Christian et. al alike.

[–]neodymiumex 0 points1 point ago

I guess you are right, I really don't get where you are coming from here. Nassim seems like a crazy person, and a poor choice on your part to try to prove that science is just as reactionary as most religions to new ideas. He believes that aliens built the pyramids, but the fact that he would be laughed out of any archeology conference for espousing his ideas isn't a poor reflection on the archeologists, it's a poor reflection on the validity of his ideas. Please, point me to a paper or something on this experiment that you claim proves his hypothesis. Because I'm going to hazard a guess that it proves nothing of the sort.

My point is, I guess, that not all belief systems can be valid - many of them are contradictory. Since I see no evidence for any of them, I believe that they all are invalid.

The best method for understanding the universe is the scientific method. I know of nothing else that leads to similar levels of predictive accuracy. Is science always perfect? No. But it has built in tools for correcting any errors that may pop up.

After a bit more research, it seems that the problem we are having is that science does in fact have a basic set of beliefs at its core. I take these for granted and I didn't even realize before reading about it that they were beliefs at all, I figured they were just fundamental truths.

For science to be true, the following need to be true:

  • there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers

  • this objective reality is governed by natural laws

  • these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation

You seem to be claiming that the 3rd point is not true, which I guess is your right.

[–]Zenkin -3 points-2 points ago

Hey, atheists are here. Don't you dare look at any religion ever because they all know everything and all the religions are wrong. Science is the only answer to anything.

[–]P4RAD0X 0 points1 point ago

Hahahah I enjoy the overzealous sarcasm. Italics is the official font of sarcasm, yes?

[–]Zenkin 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, it's pretty much my go to font for anything. Sarcasm, emphasis, irony, etc.

[–]P4RAD0X 1 point2 points ago

Hahah O how I wish I knew the subtleties of text coding. I'm stuck with boring Veranda for now.

[–]nahtans95 0 points1 point ago

About the Judeo-Christian belief, if you go back to the original Hebrew, the translation for day could mean several different things, a 24 hour day, the sunlight period of a 24 hour day, or an unspecified period of time. I believe the universe is that 13.7 billion years, old. Those "days" of creation probably lasted billions of years each.

[–]Monkeyb1z 0 points1 point ago

Anybody else see a parallel between the Judaism and Science versions?

[–]stardonis 0 points1 point ago

Occam's razor says that 'Judeo Christian' is the correct answer. Checkmate atheism, you folks have to do my laundry now.

[–]yoursiscrispy 0 points1 point ago

The Judeo-Christian hypothesis does not adhere to Occam's Razor, as it involves the use of metaphysics in its argument, whereas the scientific approach is purely material. By including metaphysics you go exactly contrary to Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is not simply the shortest possible answer, it is an answer that is as succint as possible whilst also being sufficient, the ontology of a godhead requires even more explanation than the scientific theory, and goes beyond Occam's Razor, as you can do all the explaining in the material, without needing to add on metaphysics.

It goes without saying, but fuck metaphysics and its crap, fuck Rationalism and pretty much any bullshit that's not Empiricism and Materialism.

[–]Connorulz 0 points1 point ago

repost

[–]SpeSalvi 0 points1 point ago

The big bang theory was originally postulated by a Belgian Catholic priest by the name of George Lemaitre.

According to Catholic belief, as opposed to Protestant, Genesis was never intended to be treated as a science textbook. The scientific revolution began in the 15th, 16th centuries and Genesis was written thousands of years before that. Thus, it is inappropriate and asinine to interpret the 6 days of creation as LITERALLY THIS IS HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME TO BE.

The book of Genesis is a rich and textured work of theology. It is the reflections of the writer / group of writers and their attempt discern the meaning of life, the universe, God etc. It is NOT a scientific study on how the universe was created. For example, the 6 days of creation symbolizes the universe as being God's temple, thus 6 layers similar to a pyramid / temple. A temple is where God is worshiped, thus, the universe is meant to be the place where God is rightly praised. Man was created last on the 6th day, so he is positioned at the capstone and is, thus, the epitome of creation and God's magnum opus. In addition, because man, as the capstone, is positioned closest to the heavens, he is also the high priest of the temple, and a mediator between heaven and earth.

[–]omnishruk -1 points0 points ago

sign me up to the Norse religion!

ps the big bang happened circa 13.7 bn years ago, not 13.5

[–]ihnjury 4 points5 points ago

While .2 billion years is a long time, in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal. It would be like me saying 'ps the big bang happened circa 13.71 bn years ago, not 13.70.

[–]omnishruk -2 points-1 points ago

...no it wouldn't. 0.2 bn years is a longer time than 0.01 bn years.

[–]ihnjury 3 points4 points ago

I know that, but the point went entirely over your head. The point is when you're talking about something that happened billions of years ago, the difference between 700 million and 500 million is negligible. And when you claim that someone is wrong for saying 13.5 when it's actually closer to 13.7 can be scrutinized just as easily.

[–]omnishruk -1 points0 points ago

...still, 13.7 bn is more accurate than 13.5, whichever way you look at it.

[–]ihnjury 2 points3 points ago

Agreed, just making a point.

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 2 points3 points ago

Dude, no sense arguing. Both are just as uncertain when dating techniques have a 10% error. Arguing anything less than a billion years is pointless. That other guy doesnt understand significant figures or statistical analysis or error or uncertainty, and the argument of being "more accurate" is totally wrong.

[–]omnishruk -2 points-1 points ago

...but 13.7 is still more accurate, whatever way you look at it.

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 0 points1 point ago

Dating techniques have an error much greater than what you two are arguing. It puts it from 12.5-14.0 billion years.

Also, incorporating significant figures, 13.5 and 13.7 could be as little as 0.1 apart, a mere pittance on the cosmological scale.

[–]Godspeed122 1 point2 points ago

The image was created .2 billion years ago.

[–]squarewulf -1 points0 points ago

I want an atheist to tell me where the big bang came from...

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 13 points14 points ago

I want a believer to tell me where god came from...

[–]squarewulf 0 points1 point ago

I'm just playing devils advocate. The thing is nobody can prove either one. So why can't we just say that everyone is right in some way?

[–]silurian87 1 point2 points ago

It's hard to "prove" something that happened almost 14 billion years ago. But the evidence points to the big bang happening, whether or not we know where it came from.

Criticizing the big bang theory for not explaining where the matter and energy came from is like criticizing the germ theory of disease for not explaining where germs came from.

[–]neodymiumex 1 point2 points ago

Both sides can't be right. Could there be an all powerful being that set the big bang in motion? I guess there could be, but the events certainly didn't happen as described in the bible. Since the bible is the only evidence we have for a god, and the bible is incorrect on how the world was created in the first place, I see no reason to treat it as a credible piece of evidence for the existence of a god.

[–]squarewulf -1 points0 points ago

False, the bible is not the only proof there is a god. I do not subscribe personally to the theory of a christian god. I personally believe the universe as a whole is conscious through us and itself, we exist simply to observe said universe. We are god, all of us as one is god. I believe thoughts are more powerful than matter and thoughts/mind/consciousness create matter

[–]neodymiumex 0 points1 point ago

So what evidence do you have to support your claim? Obviously the bible isn't the sole source of religious belief, it is simply the most common source cited here on reddit. Feel free to substitute "bible" with any one of a dozen religious texts that incorrectly try to describe the series of events that lead to humans coming into existence.

[–]squarewulf 0 points1 point ago

I agree with science, religion on the other hand is not to be taken literally, lots of it is metaphorical versions of the evolution of consciousness. I can cover this in more depth if desired. However, fundamentally we know absolutely nothing. EVERYTHING we know is a theory. The reason being is because we don't actually know what matter is. Alongside the realm of the unknown still holds certain facets like gravity, light, and radiation. We have very strong theories to explain these phenomena, but again they are only theory and can not be fully proven. The universe is a little bit more double sided (i believe) than most people consider. Atheists like to imagine a dead universe where carbon atoms float around vicariously through existence. I like to believe there is more than what the eye sees. I agree with science and used to consider myself an atheist. Good discussion by the way!

[–]AnotherClosetAtheist 1 point2 points ago

There can't both be a God and no God. Believers aren't allowed to question the origin of God, and will never discover an answer. Science simply hasn't answered the question get, and will try to find the answer.

On proving God, I subscribe to this:

Deist God: he created it all, but does not reveal himself or judge us. Since he hasnt ever revealed himself to prophets, we have no reason to believe in him.

Personal God: created it all, and reveals himself to prophets. Meddles with natural disasters and football games and bus schedules. Scriptures say he heals you through prayer. When the efficacy of doing nothing, praying, surgery, and surgery accompanied by prayer are measured, doing nothing and prayer have the same efficacy, and surgery and surgery with prayer have the same efficacy.

Prayer doesn't work, so we can rule out the Abrahamic God.

[–]yoursiscrispy 0 points1 point ago

No, fuck value pluralism.

[–]neodymiumex 1 point2 points ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

This is one possible explanation for the origin of the universe.

[–]viiScorp 0 points1 point ago

Either the universe arose from nothing, or we don't know.

/end

[–]este_hombre 0 points1 point ago

Either the splitting of one universe into two or the combination of two universe into one. Both of which would have occurred in the 11th dimension.

But don't take my word it, ask renowned physicist Michio Kaku

[–]MpVpRb -1 points0 points ago

Sorry..I'm still skeptical.

Yes, the universe has been observed to be expanding, so it seems logical that in the past it was smaller and hotter.

I just have a problem extrapolating that far back.

Nobody really knows how the laws of physics behave under conditions of nearly infinite temperature and pressure.

Lots of theories, lots or argument, very little certainty and proof.

[–]macevil23 -1 points0 points ago

All the evidence from science made me think, "Because a science text book says so."

[–]chasezas -1 points0 points ago

under the science section, couldn't the author just write "it says so at the library?"

[–]olives_trees -1 points0 points ago

saw this posted many times before, but i still upvote it

[–]unfinite -1 points0 points ago

Why is "microevolution" on there? That's not even a thing.

[–]collegeisascam -2 points-1 points ago

Ahh, science - BANG! There you go. Some kind of big bang.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 1465 on app-07 running fc22e53.