aquaticwonder:

Eternal

temporalcataclysm:

witneyhouston:

checkmate 

This entire list is fucking GOLD!

Let’s just take a look at these for a second:

#1: Why are the planets round?

Jesus I’m already laughing far too hard. Isn’t this supposed to be for evolutionists? Why is the very first “fact” a question about the shape of planets? Did they think they were being tricky by asking something that has nothing to do with evolution right off the bat, as though they’d trick the evolutionist into saying “Oh welp evolution doesn’t say anything about that guess you’re praise jebus.”

Off to fantastic start.

#2: Go to the zoo and tell me, why doesn’t a chimpanzee give birth to a man?

#3: Have you ever seen a mountain form?

#4: Why doesn’t new life show up in a jar of peanut butter?

I mean seriously what the shit is this

#5: If the big bang started as a singularity…who held up the singularity?

#6: A painting had a painter…therefore The Universe had a maker.

#21:

Oh god dammit. Okay, the video lists 21 things and the final number IS 21, but for some inexplicable reason, number 7 is ALSO labelled #21. 

Also, the title of this video is “21 Facts that Evolutionists CAN’T ANSWER!” That title doesn’t even make any goddamn sense. First off, the first five “Facts” were FUCKING QUESTIONS! And even if they were all facts, how does anyone even go about answering a fact? IT’S A FACT! There aren’t answers to them, THEY ARE THE FUCKING ANSWERS!

Okay, so onto #7/21

#7: If a monkey gave birth to a man, who would he (or she) mate with?

#8: How can you explain gravity?

Jesus first planet shape then mountains forming and now fucking GRAVITY? I’d say they were making this up but at the very least, the guy who posted it seems to be the real deal, and he claims to have gotten the video from a source that is also the real deal, so the only conclusion I can draw, besides the fact that they obviously know nothing about evolution, is that they also know nothing about anything at all. AND THIS IS JUST NUMBER 8 OF 21!

#9: If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

#10: If the world is “millions of years old”, why is is only 2008?

I’d say this is the point at which they went full retard but even those who would receive the label of full mental retardation would be able to see exactly why this is fucking idiotic.

#11: If I throw dirt up in the air, what are the odds it will fall into the formation of a living man?

Still better than the odds that your god did it.

#12: Can you see electricity?

FUCKING LIGHTNING MOTHERFUCKER

#13: Science changes. The Book of Genesis is perfect.

Oh well okay then. My mistake. For some reason, here I though plants came after the sun. Silly me. Clearly genesis is right and there were plants (1:11) before the sun and moon were even added to the universe (1:14). Genesis is perfect after all.

#14: The holy bible is the truth, because the bible says it’s the truth.

Y’know how I said before that the two sources of this seem to be legit? Yeah, well I seriously can’t bring myself to believe that anyone with a functioning brain stem would actually let their fingers type these words into a shitty Window Movie Maker text box without fully intending it to be a joke. There’s no way someone sat down and said “YES! THAT’LL SHOWS THOSE HEATHENS! THE BIBLE SAYS SO THEREFORE IT IS! I AM GENIUS!” 

But it’s still hilarious so let’s keep going!

#15: Evolution is a religion, and science leads to killing people.

“…and we don’t like competition. Get off our turf.”

#16: Scientists all around the world are jointly involved in a conspiracy against god!

#17: Banana’s are perfectly designed for the human hand.

I typed that as written, by the way. As was obvious long before this, proofreading is not part of the creationist brain, though that makes sense, given that they spend so much time paying no attention to what they’re reading.

#18: Millions of years for a monkey to turn into a man? Monkey’s don’t live that long.

Honestly, compared to some of the others, this far from the weakest point. At least it has something to do with evolution. Still fucking dumb though.

#19: Why would a man want to have sex with a monkey?

#20: Archaeologists always remove the human remains first when they find a dinosaur so they can continue the LIE.

#21: Can you speak monkey? Didn’t think so…

THEY SAVED THE BEST FOR LAST. Oh hot damn this is amazing. Just look at it! It’s like they got to the last three points and dissolved into a puddle of rage and confusion, 5-year-old temper-tantrum style. 

And this is just the fucking LIST. The video is so much better. It’s got this creepy royalty-free music on this that’s constantly playing as if something is going to jump out at you, and between the points, you get poorly photoshopped animal splices (like a hawk head on a dog body or an elephant head on an iguana body) with captions like “Have you seen me? Evolutionists think I’m REAL.” 

It’s a goddamn FESTIVAL OF STUPID. I love it. I go back to it occasionally just so I can laugh at the knowledge that, at best, someone created this as a joke, and it was then posted by at least two legitimate creationist channels that thought it was a great idea, or, at worst, someone seriously sat down at their computer and made this thinking it would show up all those gosh darn evolutionists and their fancy booklearnin’. It’s one of my favorite stupid things on the entire internet, and I’m very, very glad to have shared it with you if you haven’t already witnessed it. 

I mean damn. Look at it. It’s the most perfectly dumb thing I’ve ever seen. It’s fractally wrong - wrong from every conceivable reference point, and I’m dying from laughter just watching the whole video drag itself to the guillotine and pull the rope all on its own.

This video is a gift in its ignorance. Through it, I have glimpsed Ignorance Nirvana, and it’s just as dumb as you think it is. Go forth, knowing you are not this dumb, and may the sun shine brighter on you for doing so.

lord-kitschener:

lostinhistory:

meancutie:

kittens activate a vacuum 

“It’s alive!  RUN!”

“OUR EXPERIMENTS HAVE GONE HORRIBLY WRONG!”

cognitivedefusion:

Not exactly. Here’s a great review talking about this debate and the evidence on both sides of the debate:

• France, C. M., Lysaker, P. H., & Robinson, R. P. (2007). The “chemical imbalance” explanation for depression: Origins, lay endorsement, and clinical implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 411-420.

And here are great articles talking about the stigmatizing nature of the chemical imbalance explanation for depression:

• Pescosolido, B. A., Martin, J. K., Long, J. S., Medina, T. R., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2010). “A disease like any other”? A decade of change in public reactions to schizophrenia, depression, and alcohol dependence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 1321-1330.
• Read, J., & Harré, N. (2001). The role of biological and genetic causal beliefs in the stigmatisation of ‘mental patients’. Journal of Mental Health, 10(2), 223-235.
• Walker, I., & Read, J. (2002). The differential effectiveness of psychosocial and biogenetic causal explanations in reducing negative attitudes toward “mental illness”. Psychiatry, 64(4), 313-325.
• Angermeyer, M. C., Holzinger, A., Carta, M. G., & Schomerus, G. (2011). Biogenetic explanations and public acceptance of mental illness: systematic review of population studies. British Journal of Psychiatry, 199(5), 367-372.

Cliff notes:

• Depression is not a choice. It is a detrimental and pervasive struggle.
• However, that does not mean it is due to a chemical imbalance or any sort of “flaw” in chemistry. Depression is incredibly complex and cannot be watered down to “a flaw in chemistry.”
• Nor is it a flaw in character, that’s gross if anyone would actually suggest that.
• Further, not only is this claim unsubstantiated, but it actually increases harmful stigma surrounding mental illness.
• It also makes for worse prognoses for clients struggling with depression.
• Basically, nothing good seems to come from this unsubstantiated claim, but there is some harm that seems to come from it.

micpp:

we-are-star-stuff:

Who says North is up?

Upside Down maps (also known as South-Up or Reversed maps) offer a completely different perspective of the world we live in.

Technically speaking, even referring to the earth with words like “up” or “down” or comparing places with words “above” or “below” is flawed, considering that the earth is a spherical body (it’s actually slightly “fatter” at the equator) and flying through 3 dimensional space with no reference of up or down. However, the issue of “up” and “down” does become an issue when viewing the surface of the earth projected onto a flat piece of paper (a map). And the effect of the orientation of a map is more significant than you might realize.

As all maps require orientation for reference, the issue of how to layout the map orientation is as old as maps themselves. As map orientation is completely arbitrary, it is not surprising that they differed throughout time periods and regions.

The convention of North-up is usually attributed to the Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy (90-168 AD). Justifications for his north-up approach vary. In the middle ages, East was often placed at top. This is the origin of the term “The Orient” to refer to East Asia. During the age of exploration, European cartographers again followed the north-up convention…perhaps because the North Star was their fixed reference point for navigation, or because they wanted (subconsciously or otherwise) to ensure Europe’s claim at the top of the world.

In modern times, reversed maps are made as a learning device or to illustrate Northern Hemisphere bias. Different from simply turning a north-up map upside down, a reversed map has the text oriented to be read with south up.

The famous “Blue Marble” photograph of the Earth taken from on board Apollo 17 was originally oriented with the south pole at the top, with the island of Madagascar visible just left of center, and the continent of Africa at its right. However, the image was turned upside-down to fit the traditional view.

While the orientation of a map might seem harmless, it can have a significant effect on one’s perception of the world, and the relative importance of the different place in it.

In speech, we often refer to places being “above” or “below” others. Think of how you would say you’re about to travel to the state or country to your north or south (to go “down” to Kentucky from Indiana, or “up” to Canada from the US). Without even mentioning geography, ask any grade school student whether Mexico is “above” or “below” the United States. We’re all familiar with the “land down under”. As we often correlate importance to relative height (think how a citizens of a country will fly their flag higher than all other flags), the north-up convention reinforces the idea that northern bodies are more important than their southern neighbors. Suddenly, traveling “down” to the South might have an inference much deeper than geographic location.

After looking at the map more closely, you may realize that the South-Up orientation may change your perception of the relative status of different places. For example, South America suddenly looks to have more prominence, and Africa and the Middle East completely dwarf Europe. Likewise, tucking Northern Europe, Canada, and Russia away at the bottom of the map, subconsciously takes away their status.

To summarize, unconditionally accepting the north-up map convention without at least appreciating the effect stands at odds with viewing all people and places within the world equally. x x

If you’re trying to reduce cultural bias I’m not sure using the Mercator projection is the best way to go about it