How long have you guys been arguing for now?
Do you like Crusades? Do you like Giant mechs?!
Can you be consistent with your ranting and not post multiple posts so I can respond lol and you insult me when your behavior is that of a toddler anyway sure if you insist 🤷♂️
Prove me right lol
1 Like
Done
I’m going to be blunt, your a hypocrite. You straight up called me out for not responding to a video (which was irrelevant btw) because I couldn’t “quote it” (which was straight up slander)
So shut the fuck up, and respond properly, or are you an idiot?
As for your article
-
Of course there’s no evidence for it on a micro layer, that’s not how evolution works
-
The arguement that there’s no transitional fossils is stupid. Even if there weren’t not every change in biology is at the bones. Or pray tell how changing your skin color from white to brown to camouflage better is a bone effect.
-
Why would such an example of evolution at that level exist? It’s a process that takes a while, not suddenly within a generation.
-
I like the presumption that the original theory is the only one that matters, as if everything beyond that is made redundant without it. I also like how vague it is. If this fact had been known in the 19th century, Darwin could never have formulated his theory
Just wonderful. Also ignores the bird in Galapagos Island, the Finch, which was a major part of his theory of evolution as if that’s irrelevant.
- This one really shows how you and your article are idiots
The second law does not contradict evolution because giving birth to a mutated being is the same as giving birth to a non-mutated being. It’s just in a different assembly of atoms.
If the second law did contradict it, then birth itself would be impossible.
1 Like
See, was that so hard?
Hmmmm couple of things I would discuss here…
- The only real example of macro-evolution would be dinosaurs evolving into birds, apart from that the article’s right - no empirical evidence supporting the idea of macro. Then again, nobody attributes any significance to macro; the most widespread, noticeable, and significant form of evolution is the good ole vanilla flavour adaptation (i.e. survival of the fittest, i.e. micro-evolution).
- Well with the transitional fossils thing, scientists actually expect to find gaps in the evolutionary tree - fossils require a specific type of environment to be able to form, not to mention many animals don’t have the biological structure nescessary for fossilisation to occur. There’s also no way of knowing how many fossils are still left to be discovered - there is a potentially limitless number. Only time will tell if this argument holds true in your favor.
- This one’s actually quite valid… due to the nature of fossils and how they are formed, looking towards DNA as a source of evidence for evolutionary theory was really quite foolish lol
Not to mention, it’s quite possible that any strands of DNA found would have been warped/altered by the formation process. - I know nothing of geology, so I can’t make any valid statement on this one lmao
But I will say that Darwin’s theory did revolve around macro evolution, and since then many more iterations of evolutionary theory have sprung forth, the latest of which I’m assuming can operate independently of geology. Also the URL in this paragraph doesn’t work lol - Weeeelll… not nescessarily. As stated before, micro-evolution is, in a nutshell, adaptation. A species will, over time, adapt to its environment because of mutations - in fact, that’s how natural selection works. Evolution revolves around the randomness and chaos of mutation, otherwise it wouldn’t work. Basically, mutations happen, the best mutation suited to its environment will outlast the others and reproduce more while the others die off. That’s how you get things like polar bears when all other bears are a dark shade of brown.
P.S. Congradulations! You managed to find a somewhat reliable source of information lol
Still, while some of this is genuine evidence against evolutionary theory, it hardly disproves it. Evolution, while still slightly flawed, is still changing and evolving (ironically enough). But hey, that’s why it’s still a theory and not a law lol
It’s still a hell of a lot more likely than humans being forced through countless generations of incest in 6000 years lmao
1 Like
Wow, where the fuck was this evolutionary and genetic knowledge when we were arguing?
Do I really mean that little to you? :’(
XDDDDDDDD
1 Like
Was playing Ultrakill today, and found this little gem…
“The masses only follow you out of fear and desperation. I will show them there is nothing to be afraid of, for there is no species nor origin, vested rank or holy status that will stop the sharp edge of a sword. We all bleed the same blood, and the cushions of your thrones have made you weak and impotent.”
– The angel Gabriel, to a member of the council of heaven
1 Like
And yet to both I say
And
Then some
Check and mate lol dumbass go “evolve” already from your pre school education you dumb fucks lol 😂😂😂
Guided evolution.
Let the shitstorm truly commence.
1 Like
The first article is non-sense
A. Of course it can’t be recreated in a lab. Were not immortal
B. It tries to say the Miller-Urey experiment proves life is complicated and couldn’t have evolved, yet the same article quoted says the experiment isn’t even accurate, making it’s use as evidence of this self defeating.
Also there’s a reason why we’re one of the few planets capable of supporting life, we got lucky, not made.
Second article
A. “thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere”
Vague
B. This article relies on just as much speculation as the supposed scientists they criticize. They have no way to 100% prove that primitive earth was completely impossible to evolve from.
Seriously we didn’t even know dinosaurs had feathers until 1996 (first fossil was 1842) yet we’re supposed to believe we know the EXACT conditions primitive life started in?
Third article
A. A lot for this is again fossils which we’ve already discussed before
B. “Coyne’s book reads like a modern biology textbook that has been written to indoctrinate students in Darwinian evolution rather than provide them with the facts.”
Sounds like religion
C. “Coyne claims that this is something von Baer “wrote to Darwin,” but Coyne’s history is as unreliable as his paleontology. The passage Darwin cited was from a work written in German by von Baer in 1828; Thomas Henry Huxley translated it into English and published it in 1853. Darwin didn’t even realize at first that it was from von Baer: In the first two editions of The Origin of Species he incorrectly attributed the passage to Louis Agassiz.17”
So your article literally admitted that the person they’re critising isn’t good at their job
Seriously the article paints Jerry A. Coyne as an unreliable writer who’s trying to purposely mislead people, uncapable of getting history right, and doesn’t understand fossils, yet he’s also the candidate that best represents evolution?
Your sources have serious red flags
Actually it’s more like I’ve developed the central board while you pushed for check with queen, which I take with Knight, while pushing the Bishop out and casteling off to the right and ending the game in an en passant into checkmate.
Tell me, do you actually understand what they’re saying, or do you just listen and assume everything they’re saying is true?
Have you ever looked outside of your sources for pro-evolution arguments?
Or do you rely on your sources to provide them for you?
How do you know they’re not cherry picked?
1 Like
Well the the ‘answers in genesis’ one is a load of bullshit, flat-out. It’s completely got the wrong end of the stick, and whoever was responsible for writing it obviously has no education whatsoever, and before you once more cry ‘high-school education’, high school has taught me basic genetics, the laws of physics, how molecules and atoms form and interact, and countless other useful pieces of scientific info. Which is why I know that life didn’t just suddenly come into existence as fully-formed, self-replicating beings - life as we are aware of it is way to complex to simply start existing. ‘Life’ at its dawn, however, is not nearly as complex. The first ‘living’ beings would have been single-celled organisms, only they weren’t the first step. Before that, there was the organelles that make up cells. And before those, there were the chemical protiens that made them up. This really means that it’s not only possible, but quite plausible that life is in fact a complete fluke - we’re just lucky that the conditions on earth were exactly right for protiens to form and congeal. Of course, you’d know that if you had a ‘high-school level of education’, which I’m starting to think more and more that you lack XD
The final blurb about the ‘word of god’ is completely unrelated to evolution. Reguardless of God or evolution’s existence or validity, the bible is a load of shit however you choose to look at it. However as I’ve made cases for this in the above posts on this thread, i will go no deeper into it - if you can’t read what I’ve already written, that’s your problem.
With the second article, you can see that it’s better-written, but still lacks thorough thought on what it is proposing. There is no chance whatsoever that life evolved anywhere near the atmosphere. For such a chemical reaction as required for protiens (and, subsequently, organelles) to form, you would need immense pressure, heat, and an abundance of mineral resources, the type of which one might find at the bottom of, say, a hydrothermal vent. Needless to say, there aren’t a lot of hydrothermal vents near the top of sea level and, by extension, not a lot of hydrothermal vents near the atmosphere. With reguards to the second point (the energy requirement paradox) any biological molecules formed around anything such as a hydrothermal vent at the bottom of the ocean would be quite different from anything we have today. In fact, bacteria tend to thrive around these vents even nowadays. You can probably guess where I’m going with this. Talking about the next paragraph, you need to remember the scale at which we are talking about - near a h-vent (as I will call them from now on) there will be millions, if not billions, of reactions going off producing various molecules (including biological ones), and despite the low chances of any useable self-replicating or grouping organelles being formed, it will be happening. Onto the next paragraph - anybody who suggests DNA is self-replicating should be stripped of their credentials and sent back to fucking high school. Anybody can see that this doesn’t hold up. DNA is not the first step, the chance creation of seperate organelles is. Also I would like to take a moment to point out that this article is as vague as the evolutionists it is so critical of. It requires just as much speculation, and none of this actually is evidence against evolution; it’s simply evidence (iffy evidence, at that) that evolution is not responsible for starting life. There’s nothing to say it’s false. (Furthermore I would like to point out that the chemical reactions and complexity of processes in a bacterial organism is nowhere near as hard to understand as the author makes it out to be - as you are so fond of saying, I have only a high-school education and I fucken know this shit).
Well, looking at the third one, I can immediately tell you this: Darwinism isn’t the same as modern evolutionary therory XD
The theory has come forward such an incredible distance since Darwin’s time, and we have found an incredible amount of concrete evidence as opposed to Darwin’s original (and, if we’re honest, somewhat circumstantial) evidence.
It’s also important to note that the scientist in question, Conye, has described evolutionary theory in layperson’s terms; he has quite deliberately barely begun to scratch the surface of evolution and what it entails. This begs the question - why is the author of the article taking statements from a book designed to be sold to the general (ignorant) populace, and not from a genuine journal article or research report? Perhaps because then they would be unable to create illegitimate connotations from his words. I mean, the book is literally called ‘Why Evolution is True’. This is not a title a scientist would put on a journal article lol
Once again, only time will tell if the fossil-record thing goes in your favor.
And once more, The Origin was written roughly two centuries ago. Plenty of stuff has happened since then, in case you’re unaware, which includes the reveal of new evidence for evolutionary theory.
Really, the book Conye wrote is likely designed to convince the laypeople - those who are so easily swayed and blinded - to second-guess the bullshit which the Church purports about God.
The more and more of your sources I read, the more I get the feeling that while my scientific education may only span GCSE level, yours spans nothing whatsoever. Besides, we were having a theological argument before, why did you suddenly bring evolution into it? What relevance did it hold?
1 Like
I’m shit at chess, but gahd daym.
1 Like
And your opinions don’t matter so 🤷♂️
Especially when the facts are present, so there’s no such thing as evolution or dinosaurs and your all going to burn in hell lol
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” - Rev 21:8
Okay but consider this
Your God sees non-believers the same as murderers. He see’s those who harm his own creations the same as those who don’t stroke his ego
Your God is using you to suck his own dick
Have fun being a tool
👆🏼
1 Like
And according to you, factual evidence doesn’t either XD
1 Like
Well yeah, that checks out. You’re a fucking dumbass, and I’m a literal psychopath.
1 Like
All your doing is dismissing us and not actually handling the argument.
Seriously your IQ is Alaska’s temperature in Celsius