Wow people are really fucking me off recently with their double standards
Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smell your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theatre became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter.)
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir… Exactly ! The link between man and GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
That student was Albert Einstein.
Reblogging this chat post as text because I have stuff to say
Although interesting and yes quite clever WOW this makes me unfathomably angry
For starters, since when could people not observe evolution with their own eyes??? Where did this come from??! “Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor.” ?????????
What really gets me, though, is the ‘Albert Einstein’ bit at the end. I mean Jesus Christ who even comes up with this shit?? Did they read it from Einstein’s autobiography ohoho I think not. It’s like they just picked out Einstein’s name because his genius will be enough to convince people that this bullshit is actually real (think: ‘oh look Einstein said it I must be stupid not to agree with something Einstein said’ kind of thing).
Scratch that - after literally 30 seconds of research I found this site which explains it all waaaay better
Like there are some pretty poor arguments out there but the fact it tries to actually USE SCIENCE to prove its point and ends up failing miserably is really sad
but that Einstein bit just takes the biscuit omg
Checked out the Richard Dawkins tag. Big mistake for a Sunday evening when I’ve got a stack of work to get through. What amuses me so much is the sudden infestation of The Killers fans in the tag who, despite actually admitting they have little understanding of science, feel they have the right to criticise his arguments. (And then go and tag their hate in the one tag brimming with people who actually know their science).
Worst argument of the bunch - “the theory of evolution is a still a theory, not fact”. Evolution may literally remain a ‘theory’ but the evidence for evolution is a fact. The ‘theory’ of evolution is what strings together the facts we do have.
So most people are complaining that Dawkins has no right to offend someone’s religion because it happens to be what keeps them going through the tough times. This is kind of a response to a couple of the arguments I’ve seen which stand out in the tag.
What about the rest of us that can live our lives without relying on religion as consolation for the struggles in life? Why should an empty belief in existence of life after death be the only thing that keeps people going when there’s so much else out there which is not only more inspiring, but actually resides in hard scientific evidence? When I feel utterly shit, and I kid you not, I actually flick through some of his books and feel consoled in the fact that we came about on this world by nothing more than miraculous scientific ‘coincidence’ (i.e. the result of billions of years of evolution) and that is what makes my life so meaningful. The thought that we only have one life, and so it’s being nothing more than utterly moronic if we waste it in selfish anticipation of another after our death. “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.” I can name no braver human being than the one who is not afraid of admitting that one day, inevitably, his body and brain with rot in the earth.
So when you go about insulting Dawkins and tagging your hate because he offended the sole reason for your prolonged existence; expressing your desire that “one day Dawkins shall rot in hell”, what would you say if I told you that the words of this very man are what kept me going? What’s the difference between the guy that wrote your Book of Mormon and the guy that argues against humanity’s dependence on it? But you know what? I don’t tell you that, (partly because it’s not strictly true and my survival depends on a little more (that possibly being my natural survival instincts)) because I don’t get offended by critique.
Why should we censor the truth about our existence simply because of the asserted ‘reverence’ of someone’s own personal, religious beliefs and the fact they get a bit touchy if we challenge them? When Dawkins brought up the history of the Book of Mormon, Brandon Flowers had absolutely nothing to say for himself or his religion - all he said was that “some professors” had studied the book and deemed it to be genuine, although he himself had not taken part (which I took as “I don’t know why I follow my religion I just do okay”). Don’t insist that Dawkins’ attack on Mormonism was unprovoked when just a couple of minutes earlier Flowers was quite happy explaining his beliefs. In fact, don’t mistake Dawkins’ confidence and obvious knowledge in the subject as “rudeness” when the guy clearly made an extensive effort to apologise for starting the discussion without knowing Flowers wouldn’t be able to finish it.
To be honest, if the likes of Dawkins are going to be “rotting in hell”, in other words all the most brilliant-minded atheists in existence; that sounds like a pretty cool place in which to spend the rest of eternity.
“When I get mad at my mom, I don’t slam the door or yell “I HATE YOU MOM!” I just quietly go into my room and flicker the light switch on and off. That’s right, raise that bitch’s electricity bill.”
There is no surge of electricty when you flip a lightswitch off and on. It’s just an urban myth. The only thing that could possibly achieve is fusing the lights, but there is no power surge thus no impact on the electricty bill. So if you’re looking to waste electricty (and consequently reducing your ‘college fund’ or allowance in your pocket) (and the earth’s dwindling energy resources) you may as well leave the lights on rather than rapidly switching them off and on, as that would technically amount to more energy.
This guy is a genius
what kind of class is he taking that these questions are relevant to anything jkrsefldz
I think this kid should be president
one of the attorneys at work passed this around through email yesterday.
I legit laughed out loud for all of these <xD
Reblogging because this guy is a genius.
I feel like such a sceptical pedantic bitch but as witty as these answers are (they do make me laugh), the fact that some people think this is a legitimate test really pisses me off hwgurwhsuid. What kind of a test has questions about both the Declaration of Independence and a maths question like ‘what is 7+7’ phrased so ambiguously that they’re actually crying out to be answered ‘wrongly’? It’s no big deal for a guy to make up these questions himself only to answer them to make a point, because yes it’s original and funny, but really, he goes to the extent of writing that bloody signature on the right - don’t even get me started on that signature. Look at that M. He spent as long as one can physically manage on a single letter trying to make it all fancy and teacher-like. How many teachers even sign with their title they just scribble their fucking initials especially when marking something like a ‘pre test’ I mean udhfuedhcsuiaoias some people
The photo above is the closest humanity has ever come to creating Medusa.
If you were to look at this, you would die instantly. End of story.
The image is of a reactor core lava formation in the basement of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. It’s called the Elephant’s Foot and weighs hundreds of tons, but is only a couple meters across.
Oh, and regarding the Medusa thing? This picture was taken through a mirror around the corner of the hallway. Because the wheeled camera they sent up to take pictures of it was destroyed by the radiation.
I wonder if they could get pictures in colour now or maybe get an accurate heat reading off of that thing, if it’s still all there.
It’s crazy to think that something can be that strong that it would kill you by just looking at it. Though it’s understandable. I’d like a heat reading off of it.
Oh my god
I have such a science boner right now
Do you know how fucking dense that must be to weigh hundreds of tons?
Pretty fucking dense.
I found this video for anyone who wants to see a video of the thing (although it’s not the best quality). This thing is a serious monster. I have a little trouble deciphering this Wikipedia article, but from what I gather, this thing weighs 1,200 tons (2,400,000 pounds - a number I cannot even begin to fathom) and is only losing about 22 pounds of uranium per year. It resists its environment and if the shelter is improved, that loss is expected to drop.
I am simply astounded by the sheer power and properties of radiation and nuclear power plants. This is seriously scary stuff. Not to mention its effects on humans. i find deformed humans very, very unnerving. The mutations that radiation cause are the worst, in my opinion, than say, genetic mutations. This video shows some of the mutations from the Chernobyl meltdown (warning: these are very disturbing images, so view at your own risk).
Here’s another website with a collection of Chernobyl pictures, mostly of the building itself (no mutation pictures, so unless you’re upset by major destruction, this is a really cool look-through). This is my favorite picture because it really shows the dripping of the radioactive fuel/debris lava out of the valve. I just find it so absolutely terrifying that something like this could ever happen. Radiation is seriously scary stuff. What I want to know is how they took that picture.
Oh holy shit this is terrifying. The color just makes it worse. It’s like a volcano erupted indoors. Which is probably a pretty accurate analogy, plus tons of radiation to go with it. “”Corium” is only formed during a reactor meltdown as a product of the solid fuel fissioning uncontrollably. This super-hot fuel turns into a liquid and melts its way through steel, concrete, and whatever else that might be in contact with it. So it’s a mixture of fuel and various building materials,” the admin says in the comments.
This article says that Chernobyl will stay radioactive for 100,000 years.
Radiation is just unfathomably scary stuff.
I cry every time I see a picture of the elephant’s foot
I don’t mean to offend anyone but there is a LOT of misconception regarding nuclear power. People use these disaster stories of radiation and deformities without actually knowing what really went on. Only 56 people actually died as a direct result of the Chernobyl radiation, and about 4,000 after that (the actual figures are in dispute but WHO believe it to be more towards 4k).
It seems like the reason people are so scared of radiation is the fact they know so little about it. With the smallest bit of research into energy resources it’s obvious that nuclear power is the most efficient by far, and as our alternative resources are rapidly depleting (at our current rates of consumption, coal will run out in about 100 years; gas in 60; oil in 40) nuclear power seems to be one of the most logical ways forward. If we just put more money into safety in plants then disasters like this won’t happen - that’s all there is.
I went to one of those Youtube videos and one of the highest-voted comments said “We need to switch to solar and wind energy so crap like this doesnt happen again”. I think it will come as a surprise to many to learn that the Banqiao Dam disaster caused 86,000 direct deaths as a result of flooding and another 145,000 from subsequent disease. Renewable energy is regarded by so many as the safest way forward, but they fail to see that there have been disasters equally, if not more, tragic to the Chernobyl Disaster.
- Bag searches at theaters
- Metal detectors at theaters
- Not showing the new Batman movie
Things no one seems to want to talk about:
- Stricter gun laws.
I don’t get it.
stricter gun laws??? sounds like COMMUNIST talk to me
And “not releasing the Dark Knight Rises box office numbers for a weekend” - ??? I know essentially nothing about American politics so I can’t say too much, but what I do know is that in Britain we very rarely hear of shootings of any nature. I don’t even think I’ve ever seen a police officer with a gun. The most you get over here is some guy gets a knife and takes out a couple of people before getting arrested. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying that gun laws must account for quite a bit of the difference.
Camilla Long is one of the most spiteful, vindicative, butthurt-Christian bitch I have ever had the misfortune of coming across. I have immeasurable amounts of hatred for her. I despise her.
It was back in February when I saw she’d interviewed Richard Dawkins that I discovered what a massive cunt she is. She litters each and every one of her articles with petty, insignificant details and personal attacks like she’s a fucking 8 year old girl writing her diary. As an interviewer for The Sunday Times (i.e. an otherwise decent paper from which you’d expect the slightest scrap of professionalism), you’d think she actually has something worthwhile to say. But no. Nothing. She even makes the frightful mistake of going to an interview having already made up her mind.
In her 2010 interview with Nigel Farage she even jests at testicular cancer. The Richard Dawkins interview is what personally made my blood boil because he is, ironically, somewhat of a god
to me. I don’t give a damn what she makes of his work; she’s a worthless little plague of a woman and I’m sure she’s too dim to appreciate anything of his anyway - but there’s a difference between being ‘amusingly blunt’ (or whatever it is she’s trying to achieve) and being horribly offensive. Her opening sentence of the interview: “Richard Dawkins has an extremely unfortunate face”. Then, “nibbly little voice”, “tiny teeth” and “crumpled tie”. She even goes on to bringing up the 70 year old’s ‘forgetful’ memory. Does the state of his teeth honestly contribute to whatever feeble argument she is attempting to make? Nope. Absolutely not.
So I come across today’s paper and I see her filthy name at the top, alongside the words “HI, GORGEOUS!” and a picture of a remarkably un-gorgeous politician. I turn to page 5 and skim through the article - oh gosh, what a surprise, it’s a fucking shambles of a political interview. Political interview. As if the giant picture of the man’s face weren’t enough for us to make up our mind as to whether or not we PERSONALLY find the man attractive (Really?! Attractiveness is subjective?!?!), she gushes about his appearance to the point that it actually makes me cringe. For comparison’s sake, the opening sentence of his interview: “Chuka Umunna is a 33-year-old Labour MP who is so beautiful that I spend most of our interview wondering if he is actually Tyson Beckfield, a dim American male model who presented Make Me a Supermodel”. … Dot. Dot. Dot. She insists that “people at Westminster are usually so ugly”, and that this man is a “dreamboat” and “don’t mind if I do, Ed Miliband”. Funnily enough, I’m not actually interested which men this disgusting woman wants in her pants. At the end of the interview she even brags at how she was invited to his summer party.
Right, I’m done. Camilla Long is nothing more than a hormonal, sex-driven witch and I am horrified and repulsed by the fact that she’s actually paid to do this for a living.