Imgflip Logo Icon

Jim Halpert Explains

Jim Halpert Explains |  I actually do trust the science; It's the political science pretending to be real science that I don't trust | image tagged in jim halpert explains | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
2,725 views 148 upvotes Made by Phids 1 year ago in politics
Jim Halpert Explains memeCaption this Meme
87 Comments
10 ups, 1y,
2 replies
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Very well stated.
2 ups, 1y
Science
2 ups, 1y,
3 replies
If they did that, they'd have to admit the theory of evolution is false.
1 up, 1y,
2 replies
Oh, yes. If evolution was 100% proven without a doubt then it would the Law of Evolution instead of Theory of Evolution.
1 up, 1y
I don't think it's that simple. There's not necessarily a direct progression in science from a theory to a law. Also, the way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public.

As an example, there are Mendel's laws. He came up with them more than a century before scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes, which are the biochemical explanation for them.

Also, think about Newton's laws of motion and gravity. He had no real idea about the nuts and bolts of how gravity works. He observed and proved mathematically what was happening, so voila, there are the laws. I believe we still use his laws when calculating things like orbital trajectories, course corrections, etc., for the probes we send to planets and to deep space.

A quick and easy read on this subject, for the layman (like me) can be found in the link that follows.

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
Think of it this way: reproduction is imperfect(We're not all clones of each other, thank God) so different individuals will have different traits.

Now imagine a few examples: One, an individual has a genetic mutation that makes it so that they have a high chance of dyeing before passing on their genes, obviously, that trait is not passed on because those with that trait don't pass it on.

Example two: The climate of a place gets a lot colder and an individual happens to have more fur or feathers or blubber or whatever so they tend to survive better and pass on their genes, naturally, that means that that trait becomes more common.

Example three: This is how most evolution happens, slowly over the coarse of millions of years. Most mutations do nothing, a few are harmful (genetic diseases) and a tiny, tiny fraction are useful or happen to work well with a changing environment for that species.

What's your explanation? Since science is just whatever the current best and simplest theory for something is, if you have a better explanation I'm open to it.
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
Example 1 - That's a mutation. Used to be mutations were always nothing but bad news.
Example 2 = Adaptation but the species is still the same species just with more fur, fat, or whatever.
Example 3 = The problem is 'millions of years'. If science is supposed to be about what can be observed with one's senses then how can evolution be truly observed? Sure there is controlled experiments and now computer simulations but that isn't as good observing what happens in nature. Another problem evolution and even 'young earth' is that the numbers are too extreme to make any sense or comes off as trying to quickly fix the one glaring hole in both theories with numbers that sound good.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y
Example 1: Yes, precisely
Example 2: Yes, but this happens over and over again, eventually its completely different
Example 3:Well there's fossils for one, also, how do you think this works exactly?? like 65 million years or so ago we had the "Birds and Mammals" update?? There are clearly species that existed before and dont now and we have seen examples of species going extinct today. Also "Ehhh seems a bit weird" is not a terribly good argument.
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
It seems logical if you ask me :/
1 up, 1y,
2 replies
Hint: evolution was proven wrong in a mitochondria comparative study a few years ago that proved 90% of creatures on earth don't share ancestors.
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
Link to that study or it never happened.
1 up, 1y,
3 replies
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
Look up the study. 90% of all living creatures on earth don't have common ancestors
[deleted]
2 ups, 1y,
3 replies
2 ups, 1y,
1 reply
Not the first time Loki has cited something which totally contradicts the point he pretends it makes.
[deleted]
2 ups, 1y,
1 reply
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
I broke muh "no links" rule once and peaked, then asked if Loki actually read the thing. There was nothing in it that could even be misconstrued to support his bogus claim.

I'm surprised Zak even tried to back up his bs for once!
0 ups, 1y
And you all failed to read. The study proves 2 things 90% of all things living don't have a common ancestors abs every living things seems to have popped into existence about 100,000 years ago. Please do some research.
0 ups, 1y
It shows that 90% of all living creatures on earth now didn't have common ancestors and appear to have come into being about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. This wipes out all of mammal evolution from the theory (basically the evolution tree now looks more like a lawn).
0 ups, 1y
In that the commonality that would exist of species that evolved through time to become modern species. Evolution would show distinct genetic similarities and recordable data that says "yes, we evolved from __________"

That doesn't exist in 90 percent of all living creatures.

Even the theory of evolution disproved itself - because it was clearly a natural selection model and not an evolution (which is a change from one thing to another).

Or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - which sets the precedent of entropy. A car left in a field will turn to rust - not into a better car.
1 up, 1y,
2 replies
Okay. You didn't read that article. Here's how I know: it clearly discusses how 9 out 10 animals evolved within the last 200,000 years And that there are older animals because that's the 1 out of 10. That life is continuing to evolve and change in a much faster fashion than we thought.

The article discusses the genetic variation between species but the lack of variation within a species. The researchers had thought that evolution happens at a very slow pace, but the very common set of genes within a species shows that evolution happens much much much faster.

it doesn't disprove evolution at all.
0 ups, 1y
Evolution requires that all creatures on earth have common ancestors. This proves genetically that 90% of creatures on earth don't have common ancestors at least back to 100,000 years where the mitochondrial DNA starts (which they have no explanation of why it doesn't keep going back billions of years). It helps if you understand the terms they use.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y
no, no, you dont get it. the universe updates every now and then
1 up, 1y
You're lying, as usual, and badly, as usual.
0 ups, 1y,
2 replies
For me evolution was proven false when I read Genesis.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
3 replies
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
The evidence we can see is also exactly what God creating a universe would look like too. Science doesn't and never will disprove God.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
0 ups, 1y
God by all definitions is an alien. Aliens are mathematically likely to exist. Which means any percentage of aliens could have advanced technology so odd it would look like magic to us. Or could even potentially just be magic who knows.

My point is - we are more likely created and setup to thrive and be top of the food chain scientifically for this planet. I don't think that's a coincidence of hapstance circumstances.

Maybe God is just an alien scientist who saved reality as anything knows it by making a Universe and then starting life again. It's possible.
0 ups, 1y
The difference between you and I on "magic pixies" is that were that someone's belief, I wouldn't say they are wrong. Or that magic pixies don't exist. Because I'm confident in my belief.

If you're not confident in your belief that's on you ;-)
0 ups, 1y
The evidence we see could equally be God's delivery method for creating man could it not?

Why can't we both have one half of the same story?
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
In the phrase "created" - best selling book of all history of books since books became a thing.
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
Science says we evolved from primates and other say we came from the water. Now how do you demonstrate that actually happened?

Science says the universe was created in a big bang. Now how do you demonstrate that actually happened?

It's called faith. I have faith that what is written in the Bible is true - you have faith that science has it right. Neither of us can prove one or the other. What's your point?
[deleted]
0 ups, 1y,
2 replies
0 ups, 1y
No we can't do that. We can only guess. That is what dudes article supplied. There aren't those connecting factors
0 ups, 1y
Can you go back to the creation of the universe and observe it? No. One could argue that the expansion we think we have witnessed is god's creation happening from creation .

Can you go back and time and watch man evolve through time? No you cannot. It's just as much faith as being a Christian
0 ups, 1y
Yes, yes they would.
3 ups, 1y
Bravo +1
2 ups, 1y,
1 reply
I suspect that "political science" is anything you don't agree with and "science" is what supports your pre-formed conclusions. Of course, both of those are completely independent of facts or data.

It's always about your feelings.
0 ups, 1y,
3 replies
Ok, let's play: based on science, is this person a man or a woman?
1 up, 1y,
2 replies
Are you asking about gender or biological sex?

Because according to science those are 2 different things.
0 ups, 1y
WRONG. lol
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
I asked you an extremely simple question. Your inability to provide an answer dissolves your claim about what you "suspected" about me, and reveals the truth of the original meme that I posted.
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
Phids, I asked a clarifying question.

That way we could drill down to the information you wanted to discuss based on data and facts rather than your feelings.

So, which is it, did you want to talk about biology or gender?

Or did you have a pre-formed conclusion about something over which you've done zero reading?

It's that 2nd one, isn't it?
0 ups, 1y
The fact that you cannot answer one of most basic questions on earth shows that you prefer political science over actual science.

The thesis of my meme has been confirmed.
0 ups, 1y,
1 reply
ACTUAL reality is inescapable....
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
I just did a google image search of men press conference and this was the 3rd image.

How someone points their feet is how someone points their feet. Your feelings about that are not facts.
0 ups, 1y
Bruh, it was just a picture.

...LOL and also in this one they are standing the same. Thanks Drunky the Clown.
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
Science of Biology - Man.
Science of Psychology - Man with delusions of Womanhood.
[deleted]
1 up, 1y,
1 reply
0 ups, 1y
According to the Cleveland Clinic, "Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness — called a "psychosis"— in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue."

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9599-delusional-disorder

If a man has an unshakable belief that he is a woman, that is a delusion by definition.
Show More Comments
Flip Settings
Jim Halpert Explains memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I actually do trust the science; It's the political science pretending to be real science that I don't trust
hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back
Feedback