We all love to put our thoughts into words with the hope of some truth and reality to spring out of our reasoning. But to does who believe that natural cause and effects are the engines that produce information inside the DNA, Problems arise. These problems are so huge that we dare not talk about them. We close our eyes and wish them away.
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops. Evolution... you gotta be an idiot if you believe otherwise. There I said it.
@ktowers59 the theory was only sustainable when we knew little about life. Though, even then, some prominent scientist laughed at it. Now you have to accept it or risk losing your job. Some are brave enough to do research opposing darwinism. You can go read their opinions etc. if you won't then there us no point in asking me fire anything. Your mind would be already made up.
@ktowers59 lol. Maybe I will find some sources for you later. I have gotten tired of these arguments and just assume the other person had been following the issue as I have. For one thing, go read about the latest info on a recent whale fossil find. I will post when I care to sure down and do it right. Science is most definitely leaving evo behind
@ktowers59 sigh. Kids needing to be spoon-fed everything
Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story bit . ly/v3cElt
Finding of the oldest whale fossil in the world: "Antarctic archaeocete" bit . ly/tPb4Pf
so, basically, within the darwinist framework, this fossil dates back to the same time as the supposed whale ancestors in this video. Just so you understand, A FULLY FORMED WHALE was around at the same time as the supposed ancestors.
@semitope You are the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks for such a wonderful example of the 110% dishonesty of cretinists. Why don't you go beyond the Dishonesty Institute's garaunteed deliberate lies and read the ACTUAL SCIENCE.
It doesn't say what you are claiming AT ALL, you lying MF'er. The Liars for Jebus can ALWAYS be counted on to lie because they have no facts. The Liars for Jebus MUST lie because there are no facts on their side.
@ktowers59 I knew you would deny it. The facts are right there for you. Here, this might be easier for you en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans 53million years for Pakicetidae and that fossil was dated 49 million years. What the site said was true of the findings, that you reject it outright simply because of the source shows just what kind of person you are. Continue lying to yourself. As far as science goes, this video is BS like common descent.
@semitope What source? Your links didn't come through. I googled your title and the 1st 10 returns were all creatard Casey Luskin on creatard sites or creatards linking to them. Do I fail to take a professional liar's interpretation as "gospel" when I also looked up the unadulterated story? Damn straight!
You say your site's interpretation was true. Was I right about it being Luskin? Am I right that no actual scientists interpretted it that way? Are you the one lying to yourself? Hmmm?
@semitope@semitope Is that all you're going to post? An intellectually honest person would at least acknowledge some of the man y ways that I refuted your claims:
No response on the matter of the recency of early whale fossil discoveries and my clear explanation of how that defeats your "evolution disproved" IDiocy. Hmmm?
No response on my correction of the near universal creatard (intentional?) misunderstanding of evolution that was surely behind said IDiocy. Hmmm?
@semitope Thanks for the full concession regarding the fossil find "disproving evolution" or even being anything more than fascinating new evidence in the developing story of early whale evolution. I know it, you know it, and anybody who might read this thread knows it. Actually, we all know two things. First, we all know a dishonest creatard concession when we see one. Second, we all know that you will never be honest about it.
@semitope there is no talking to this Ktowers59 guy, i see how he is being a little snot to you. I mean, i am an atheist to, and HE is fighting with ME! this guy is unbelievable! Just saying, if you want backup whilst dealing with this 12 yr old, hes been pissing me off to, i would love to help. its the dumbest thing ive ever heard, i believe what he believes and he's fighting with me. This kid strives for conflict.
@natesdevices You're really starting to make me wonder about your true sympathies, Nate. You're offering backup to a pathologically lying, science hating, dangerously deluded, medieval holdover because you think that I'm being "a little snot". I'm doing nothing more than defeating the azzhole with facts and logic and then making sure he knows it.
For whatever personal reasons, you are painfully illogical, can't seem to get anything right, and will never, ever cop to it.
IF Pakicetidae and some Basilosauridae lay on a direct lineage (a HUGE if) and IF Pakicetidae emerged not one second earlier than the known 53MYr old fossils (another HUGE if), then you still have 4MYrs for the differences between them to evolve. I predict that you object to that based upon a calculation done by the tard that sneaked in the only ID paper ever to be published in a real science journal on his last day - behind the backs of all the other editors. Hmmm?
@semitope Most cretinists are willfully ignorant of the concept of branching lineages, most branches going extinct, and coexistence of species that change much more than other related species; e.g., "why are there still monkeys?" (face->palm)
Basilosauridae (all 11 species extinct) branched off the common lineage with Pakicetidae 3 major branches after Pakicetidae did (from a cladogram based on all data sets). Do you understand the implications? Will you admit it? Are you not allowed to?
@ktowers59 wait, let me make it easy, what do you think the evidence says, and what is the lie that the "cretinists" are telling. Maybe that will break your pathological self deception. The original? The report from a neutral site was given to you. The second link is a government website involved in the finding. I mean, this is not rocket science. Do you never interpret findings for yourself? All the information is right there
@semitope The lie is - the only interpretation of the data is "evolution is disproved". All they've proved is that they no nothing of evolution or have ZERO intellectual honesty.
Neutral/gov't sites? Links didn't post. Do they support the creatard conclusion? Hell no! (Unless you think Luskin is neutral)
My guess is that "Do you never interpret findings for yourself? All the information is right there" is the BS non-argument that "the creatard lies are the only interpretation". Hmmm?
@semitope Even if I were to stipulate the truth of this one creatard lie, you would still be doing what all creatards always do - cherry-picking one distorted factoid while ignoring a billion counter-examples. Like just the table of contents from Wiki's page on transitional fossils:
@semitope 9 Labyrinthodonts to Modern amphibians 10 Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles) 11 Turtles 12 From Lizards to Snakes 13 Lizards 14 Pterosaurs 15 Archosaurs to Dinosaurs 16 Dinosauria 17 Dinosaurs to birds 18 Bird Evolution 19 Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals 20 Evolution of mammals 21 Early Artiodactylans to whales (Evolution of whales) 22 Evolution of sirenians 23 Evolution of the Pinnipeds 24 Evolution of the horse 25 Human evolution
@semitope FYI - Legged "proto-whales" have been known for only a decade. They're virtually all located in remote mountainous tribal regions of Pakistan. Thus, the scientifically literate understand that since new findings are still streaming in and old ones are still being studied, taxonomies are hypotheses whose details vary from tentative to rather conclusive. Even the latter may be revised in light of new discoveries and analysis. Creatard say "Change bad! Unchanging dogma good!"
@semitope I care what evidence says. Evidence says that cretinists must lie with every breath, so cretinism must be false.
I dare you to go to the original source material and give the actual scientific opinions stated. You can't do it because your entire miserable life is invested in a lie. So you will say that black is white until we all give up on your sorry azz. And then you'll claim victory like the dishonest little bitch you are.
Wtf was that? Some horrible animation at best and certainly not a convincing progression from a land-dwelling mammal to a water-dwelling mammal. Arranging organisms that are artist's conceptions of what they think they looked like is not evidence that it actually happened in that manner.
@Dporebski20 wats ur point? so it wasnt a good video, in ur opinion, r u implying something? the skeletal progression of the animals was perfectly reasonable, and no less CONVINCING then a jew of divine property being punished by his dad and then coming back from the dead 3 days later.
OK guys, i believe in evolution too, but there is a lot of needless religion hating here. i mean ur no better then those ass wipes spouting scripture if u stupe to ther level. let them hold on to their faith. its ok to have religion, jus dont talk about it to everyone. people who hate religion and think faith is bad r miserable, wastes of humans. its our nature to believe in bizarre thigs wen we dont understand, so all u atheists stop hating. once again, i believe in evolution.
@natesdevices Just pointing something out you can't believe in evolution for that requires faith. Faith is catergorised as the belief in something controversial to the evidence. Evolution is abundant with evidence. You can either accept evolution or reject it. Rejecting it is just living in denial however.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Evolution has no evidence (common descent). If you are asked for evidence I know what kind you will produce and your belief in evolution means you do not have the logical fortitude to realize why it is not actually evidence. Just sad how fking dumb evolution makes people. You basically downgrade your mind when you think a land mammal will turn into a whale. Do you even know the differences between the 2?
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM lol. Same to you, and don't do it through the eyes of an evolutionist. I am not even joking about this. Evolution is impossible and any 5 year old would know that things don't just morph into other things. There are so many intricate factors that I can't imagine an evolutionist scientist would believe the theory unless they simply had to. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for random processes to produce what we see in organisms. Let that sink in.
@semitope If you would like a detailed explanation of evolution that you can actually understand look up this video: The Theory of Evolution made Easy - Potholer54. If you still have difficulty understanding he has a whole series dedicated towards similar matters
@semitope I did not say that. However now that you mention it I severely doubt you understand evolution otherwise you would not be debating it. Did you watch the video I suggested?
@semitope If you are not prepared to listen to both sides of the argument then you are not fit to debate on any topic. Also your links lead to infinite loading screens.
@semitope You Claim that you understand evolution but I have not seen any proof of this understanding from you yet besides the very crude statement "animals can't morph into other animals".
@semitope Anyway I'm off. Here's the vid again, I would advise giving it a thorough look; The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Potholer54. (He also has another video explaining Natural Selection just previous to this one)
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM I have not seen any proof that you understand it either. It's really hilarious how people jump to "you don't understand it". I know what NS is. smh
@semitope What kind of question is that? Because you can't answer it you're relying on my knowledge of Evolution to answer my own question. Is there any layer you won't sink to?
@semitope Anyway this isn't about my understanding. You're the one who started the argument and you should know what you are talking about. So far you have not shown even a basic understanding.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM ok dude. Keep telling yourself that. I wasnt actually asking for you to show your knowledge. I was telling you how stupid it was to be saying I wasn't showing mine in fking youtube comments. As if evolution is even that complicated; the only reason you are asking is because I do not think it is a valid theory. Your mind automatically recoils into its shell and starts accusing me of not understanding. Tell that to all the scientists I can show you who think the same as me.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM I have not "interpreted" it any way. I simply said that the mechanisms are not capable of what they are said to have done. You can't even consider that, all you are about is whether or not the mechanisms are real and from that you jump to evolution must be true. The vid you told me to watch is stupid btw. The guy is simply story telling with nothing to support him.
@semitope You have not picked out any flaws so far you are merely claiming that it is impossible without offering an explanation as to why it is impossible. Which mechanisms are "not capable"?
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Mutations are mostly harmful or benign. bit . ly/rQCdcM Natural selection won't have anything to work with. NS is also more likely to degrade variety in information than produce organisms capable of it. There is no scientific consensus on how self replicating molecules could have come about and even with those, the odds are still not in the favor of your beliefs. You guys really don't seem to have a clue about what you are saying when you talk about evolution.
@semitope Mutations are changes in genetic sequence within a cell's genome. No Mutations are not mostly harmful as you put it but they can be. Natural Selection alters the organism through a non-random process. Differences in traits cause some organisms to mate at a higher rate than other organisms without the trait. The environment does the selecting. Animals replicate themselves and every replication isn't perfect leading to to more variation.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM I said they are either harmful or benign. Harmful is far more likely when not benign. I know what natural selection does, and counter to what the idiots tell you, it isn't sh*t without mutations. The bottleneck is random therefore the entire process still requires that information comes about entirely randomly before it is selected for. Evolution goes in no direction and has no aim so it is a random attempt to get the next step every time.
@semitope Yes Mutations are the raw material in DNA for natural selection to work upon. Mutations are a key part in Evolution. Evolution does go in many directions actually. There are three key factors in Evolution. Natural Selection, Mutations and Genetic Drift. Mutations and Genetic drift are random but trying to classify evolution as an accident does not change what it is and what it does.
@semitope actually it is a common misconception that occurrence of mutations are random. In physics, studies like chaos theory illustrate how the world is deterministic, and things only appear random to us because we don't understand all the underlying variables underneath. Analogy is like trying to find out the next number given a very complex function, one which we have no current way to describe.
@semitope Second, if mutations are indeed random, we will expect them to distribute randomly across the genome. But obviously they don't. So mathematically and biologically speaking, occurrences of mutations are not random. And lastly, we have already seen novel functions coming out by mutations, so this shows evolution does have a direction. Creationists, at this point, argue that the direction is limited by God so macro-evolution cannot occur.
@ktowers59 gj simplifying it. Because the word chimp and chump have any representative value for DNA. You guys look at life so primitively. Might as well be back in Darwin's time when people thought life came from rotting garbage.
If you need to believe the theory, I understand. You really cannot be a respectable atheist to yourself without evolution. Even if you cannot provide proof or back it up
1) Any LOGICAL argument for the analogy = invalid?
You followed w/:
2) Your std content-free insults & unfounded assertions.
3) "Even if you cannot provide proof or back it up"
You guys have brass ones, I'll give you that. 1st, you speak of "proof" like the scientific illiterate that you are. 2nd, you ignore - or are ignorant of - a dozen fields of study that 100% support ToE in billions of interconnected ways. 3rd - Where's YOUR EVIDENCE that I've asked for? Hmmm?
@semitope "a word is far less complicated than DNA"
A BS non-argument that STRONGLY implies that you no nothing of genetics!
"they do not %100 support evolution."
I know I'm likely wasting my time but SHOW ME THE PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE!
"Even palaeontologists do not bother with it so much anymore"
Ignorance or deceit? I honestly can't tell which, but either one is breathtaking. I know I'm wasting my time but ANY PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE TO BACK THAT UP?
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM all you guys ever do is ignore detailed biology and make claims about what must have happened grossly. Somehow the mammal morphed into a whale, but you never bother to go into detail scientifically (because it is impossible) on how it would happen. This is schoolboy science at best. Take on all the changes that would be necessary and stop saying "it just happened" or Time Did It™
@natesdevices - OK - as long as the religious merely quietly maintained their faith. Many go far beyond that:
1) Seek to enshrine their interpretation of their religion's distortions of morality as the default view and often seek to back it up with legal sanctions.
2) Sometimes subtly, other times not, are bigoted and discriminate and teach bigotry and discrimination.
3) It is "our nature to believe in bizarre things when we don't understand", but we DO understand. They refuse to!
@ktowers59 you don't understand sh*t. Evolution is a materialist creation myth. No evidence but circumstantial and unrelated evidence, it is shown to be scientifically impossible yet people chug on. The whale evolution could not have happened and a recent fossil found supposedly dates to around the time of the pre-whale ancestors you guys think existed. The fully formed whale was supposedly around at the time of the ancestor. Just dumb, but go ahead believing your garbage
@semitope Lots of bluster, but no substance. The claims you make in your posts and the questions asked display a staggering ignorance. No one who had a clue about the subject would ever make these claims or even ask those questions. Here's an example:
"it is shown to be scientifically impossible" in this context only serves to show that you haven't a clue how science works. Or basic logic. Dying to see your "proof". (snicker)
@ktowers59 scientifically impossible is meant to say that current scientific knowledge does not support the myth of evolution.
note I really don't care whether you are willing to concede this or not. I have seen enough to know that people are not in the least bit honest of logical when it comes to this. You've filled your head with words like "IDiots" and have managed to convince yourself that anyone who disagrees does not understand the theory... or were you brainwashed? u atheist, right?
@semitope "current scientific knowledge does not support the myth of evolution" = asserting w/o evidence" and is 100% false. (I'm sure that you'll also make the claim that science gives evolution denial no credence because they're biased. Having your cake and eating it, too?)
EVIDENCE, PLEASE.
"u atheist, right?" Is this your "logic"? Elsewhere in the thread are theists who don't deny science, so your point is . . . .?
Oh, and that "proof' and that fossil find, please (snicker)
@ktowers59 The reason they refuse to is because they have been dreadfed an image of creation for 5500 years. They are perfectly comfortable with their belief systems and as long as they dont speak down on others who disagree they are just as entitled to their beliefs as you are. The same goes for you atheists. Beliefs are like politics, in the unlikely scenario where either party has any idea what their talking about, neither one is skilled enough to explain it to the other. work it out folks.
They are NOT comfortable w/ their beliefs. Their denial and sophistry are products of fear, as you implied with "dreadfed". Fear that they might stop believing and fry.
The DO speak down on others! All the time! In fact, demonizing rationalists is sop. This particular IDiot is a classic example. Reading his posts; all he does is assert w/o evidence and insult.
Atheism is NOT a belief.
And no one can explain what is actively being dismissed!
@ktowers59 i get what your saying but my point is that atheists dont have to hate god and religion, they just have to ignore it. Why do you care what these diluted people believe? we all know were right and thats what matters. The church will fail within the next hundred years so lets just content ourselves with that.
@natesdevices No, you don;t get what I'm saying. You're ignoring the points I made in my first response to you, for one thing. Ever read Hitchens? Any idea what religious bigotry and the irrationallity of "faith" have done throughout history?! As for your wishful thinking - It's exactly that. And it doesn't do me or anyone else any good right now, does it?
So apparently you shrugged off 9/11? And the millions dead in Africa because the church told them condoms cause AIDS?
@ktowers59 what are you talking about with 9/11? I dont like christianity either but not all religions are bad. If everyone believed in atheist principles then they would find new ways to distort it to. Its not religion, its human nature. As a species we like to find ways to justify our desires for power. Its human instinct.
@natesdevices Duh! You say "just ignore religion", so I guess you don't care about these deluded people. Therefore, I assume the crap there delusions result in are OK by you.
PS - I don't know of a single "atheist principle". Not believing in something fantastical for which there is zero evidence isn't exactly a principle and that is all atheists have in common. Nothing to distort.
@ktowers59 The definition of atheism via encyclopedia is the belief that god doesnt exist, if you dont abide to that concept, idea, belief, or PRINCIPLE you are not atheist. 9/11 was the result of of terrorist groups weaving their fanatical ideas into a peaceful beliefs sytem and the real reason for crusades were the result o f rome wanting to expand their empire, not teaching religion. If everyone was atheist it would be treated as a religion to.
@natesdevices Belief is concluding w/o evidence. Atheism is concluding on the evidence - lack thereof - and is a rational conclusion. It is also a negative one. Every religion makes positive claims. Atheism doesn't. There is no conceivable way to make anything remotely like a religion out of the one - and only one - shared "principle" that there's no reason to believe in god(s).
Peaceful?! Have you read any of this stuff? Either one? Are you effing serious?!
@ktowers59 have you? islam in it's bear form is a beautiful thing. Any way though, if the whole world was atheist the rather then argue over god peole would argue over how to lead their secular lives. Who is the best atheist? How should i judge my actions? ect. People would form groups that all stem from the belief that there is no god. Conflict is unavoidable.
@natesdevices Don't you understand English or do you not even read my posts?
1) The Koran glorifies and encourages conversion by the sword and hatred and discrimination against infidels. Let's not even get started on the buybull!
2) Your points on atheism leading to issues similar to religion's ignore what I've already told you and are asinine in the extreme. Fighting to be the "best person who doesn't collect stamps"? Seriously?! Besides, the god concept would be meaningless.
@ktowers59 no, you dont understand, a fact that has been made prevalent by your short temper and closed minded thinking. Not every atheist is as "level headed" as you would believe them to be. There is no, not a one, reason that humanity wouldnt find just one, but numerous ways to divide a secular world. You, like most atheists, dillude yourself with the notion that as long as there is no religion, conflict will not occur just because you all believe the same think. A foolish notion indeed.
@natesdevices You're certainly stubborn in your willful failure to understand. Ever consider getting religion? One more time for the hard of thinking:
Yes, there would be numerous ways that a secular world would be divided, but NOT A DAMN ONE WOULD HAVE A DAMN THING TO DO WITH ATHEISM, you mental midget!
"You ... dillude yourself with the notion that as long as there is no religion, conflict will not occur ..."
A dumbass strawman or an intentional lie? Either way - goodbye, troll.
@ktowers59 this is why i dont like atheists. Your short tempered, obnoxious and so obsessed in your ways that even if a new idead of thinking helped to prove you right, you would ignore it, because your just as stubborn, and aggressive as the religious peoiple you hate. Alll youve done is prove my point. if the whole world was atheist there would still be violence. SO WHY DOES IT MATTER IF PEOPLE HAVE RELIGION YOU RETARD? Damn it your annoying. calling everyone a troll despite insulting everyone
@ktowers59 you trolle first, i have been trying to avoid insulting you ti keep this civilized but you cant seem to do the same. Look, the fact that you are even arguing with me proves my point. Your an atheists, and im technically an "atheist". As a society of atheists, the world would be divided between people like you, the kind who hate religion, and people like me, the kind who think its fine. Your kind would hate and alienate my kind. were both atheists, and were fighting, why wouldnt others
@natesdevices You're so effing illogical that I don't like being associated with you. I correct your mistaken def of "troll" - you repeat it! You repeat that different kinds of atheists would argue based on their position on religion when your premise was NO RELIGION - AFTER I've explained the stupidity of it! And then, you wrap up with another implied argument that eliminating insanely devisive religion (which I supported as such) wouldn't help because there would still be SOME devisiveness!
@ktowers59 Just because you reexplain something doesnt mean your right, I take it by your excessive use of big words and defensive, condescending insults that you are about 12, give or take a few years. If not, then this is sad. It doesnt matter, it seems i cant stress this enough to you, how few regulations, concepts, or rules ther are in a belief, it WILL be divided, thats instinctual human nature, you cant deny that. human nature is illogical.
@natesdevices And atheism is NOT a belief, you unbelievably dense dufus!
If there were no religion, the lack of a belief in god(s) that EVERYONE shared would no more be a source of division, bigotry, and violence than a lack of belief in unicorns!
@ktowers59 atheism is true, i totally agree, but it's what you believe, christians genuinely believe in their ridiculous lunacy. So, despite it's truth, it's only fair to call it a belief. I know it sucks, but what can you do? Im going out, somy response to your next post will be delayed.
@natesdevices Don't bother. If you truly can't understand what anti-atheists willfully refuse to understand, our conversation is over. On top of all of the countless illogical things you've said, ignored the refutation of, and repeated again, you're still sticking with the "not stamp collecting is a hobby, bald is a hair color" argument that failing to believe something (for which there is no evidence; i.e., on faith) is itself "belief" rather than the default negative (and logical) position.
@natesdevices First, "look, buddy" is not an excuse for your perfect record of logical failures & refusal to acknowledge same.
"There are worse things in life" isn't a ringing endorsement. I suspect that you didn't mean to imply the obvious connotation because you don't grasp how bad it really is. If just insisting that all science is an evil conspiracy theory isn't bad enough, I can list things far worse. You don't see them because religion's evils have been "normalized".
@ktowers59 Jesus christ, i see theres no getting through to you, i should have figured i wouldn't be able to change the mind of a religious zealot such as your self, go enjoy your self fulfilling prophecy of a world that cant be good while religion survives, i hope you find happiness in the living hell you must experience every day.
@natesdevices Name one cogent argument that you think SHOULD have "gotten through to me". You call me a religious zealot, just like any anti-atheist is guaranteed to do. You fail to acknowledge both the science-bashing and all the other implied evils that you, just like any anti-atheist is guaranteed not to acknowledge if I did list them. You've kept your perfect record of illogical responses intact.
Again - name a cogent argument that I'm "not getting"; don't repeat fallacies.
@natesdevices "live in your awful, miserable religion filled world."
You're actually correct, but I know that you're in your utter defiance of all reason, you're actually continuing to call black white just as I predicted.
Perhaps you justify it by applying some personal definition of religion - JUST LIKE THE ANTI-ATHEISTS ALWAYS DO - so that it can incorporate atheism. Words have meaning, moron.
They do it to try to paint us as just as irrational as them.
@ktowers59 You must be miserable at social occasions. I am no more anti atheist then i am anti religious, maybe you would understand this if you werent the defensive closed minded 12 year old that you are. I used to be like you, a sad, arrogant hater of status quo thinking, partly because that was who i was, partly because i liked being the smartest person in the room. Maybe you will mature, maybe you wont. Your like the hyper defensive jews in my home town, "agree with me or your anti me!"
@natesdevices Egads, you are thick! Where the eff did I say you were anti-atheist, you mental midget?! All I've said - AND YOU PROVE WITH E-V-E-R-Y POST - is that you're as stoopidly illogical and as childishly denialist as they are.
If you were EVER the smartest person in the room, you were either alone or at a mental midget convention.
My apologies to all mental midgets for comparing you to this drooling moron.
@ktowers59 "LIKE THE ANTI-ATHEISTS ALWAYS DO". there were several other instances but the fact that you actually cant recall or dont count them does wonders for any one's opinions of you. Look twelvey, I get that your a troll, i get that you dont like me, and i get that whatever friends you may have are fantastic to overlook your middle school bitch personality. You can call me a mental midget all you want, but that doesnt change the fact that others would prefer me to a closeminded ass like you
Listen up, "LIKE THE ANTI-ATHEISTS ALWAYS DO" is NOT "you are one". It means you're as STOOPID as one. Get it?!
BTW, calling me a kid, troll and closed minded for being right revealing your STOOPIDITY is projection of the highest order. Also, pure bluster. If you could form a cogent argument (and post once in a while w/o elemental errors), you wouldn't have to stoop to that.
Also, I'm 52, professional, IQ of 150+. Your batting 100.
@natesdevices You should. The world isn't awful because truth is logically defend w/ facts. It's because too many people speak BS because they're ignorant, duped, illogical, & cognitively biased & then get PO'ed, whine, & dig in their heels when they can't refute reality as defended by logic and data.
Yes. I'm 52. I care about my kids and grandkids riding the planet down the toilet because the natesdevices & semitopes are sophists & reality deniers.
@ktowers59 If you are concerned for your grand kids then you should be concerned about war, climate change, economy, society. Not because of a world view which loses credibility and followers every year. As i said before, in this day and age there are far worse things then religion, not that it isnt irritating. i dont deny reality, if anything i firmly grasp it, i understand your concerns, but i feel they are misplaced. You seem like a good person. if your willing, we could agree to disagree. :)
@natesdevices You fail to see the link. Religion is the dominant "gateway drug" to irrationallity, delusion, and danger of all sorts. From your list alone:
War - very often religiously driven, religion invoked to inspire loyalty and military service and as a salve for the loss of life and fear of death.
Climate change - Denial of it has an uncanny correlation w/ creationism and religion in general.
All of the things that are "worse than religion" are exacerbated by it.
@ktowers59 by the way, im not anti atheist, your anti religious, and im not, so you seek to deter me. I am an atheist, i think the shit we deal with from christians is horrible, not being allowed in scouts, offenses from the army, and the overall dislike for us in normal society, and so on. Look, i dont like EITHER atheists or religious people that much, not one more then the other. both groups are unapproachable idiots, not making more sense then the other. im not Anti atheist.
@natesdevices Yes, I'm anti-religious and I've given or strongly hinted at why. You yourself mention some reasons and admit that you think they're horrible, yet - illogical as ever - you claim not to be anti-religious. Of course, you're so illogical that you say you're an atheist and then that you don't like yourself because you;re an unapproachable idiot!
I "seek to deter" you because you're so stupid that you repeat STOOPID anti-atheist talking points AFTER being corrected!
@natesdevices "... EITHER atheists or religious people ... not making more sense then the other."
I see your problem - You think you're a typical atheist, but you're a rarity - the first of your kind I've ever encountered! You make no more sense than the lowest common denominator theist. If you were a theist arguing for theism and bashing atheism, you'd perfectly exemplify their utter lack of critical thinking skills and perfect record of refusing to acknowledge all critiques.
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
@darkfur35 I think you meant the story of hell. Like when your mommy said "little darkfur, God is watching, so when you touch your little peepee God will send you to hell". That is the fairy tale you are thinking of.
@darkfur35 Yeah and the bible has magic hair, talking animals, dragons and fairies in it.......So what is your point again?? Its a make believe to keep idiots in line
@darkfur35 Lord of the rings is a interesting story and a much better background story for their fairies and monsters. The bible just rips off other cultures and stories. Yes your bible is a fairy tale with talking animals, magic hair, dragons and satyrs or giants too. Also take a few course in science before trying to disprove a theory you don't understand.
@darkfur35 No, Science does not work that way. Yes they fudge the data, they are only human, but it is open to peer review. People, like creationists, can point out the mistakes and challange the data. Like trying to say the evolution is prevented by the 2nd Law. Then scientists prove creatards are full of crap.
@darkfur35 The fuck did you get that bullshit from? Over 99% of scientists (in the relevant fields) accept evolution. Not to mention most of those less than 1% don't accept evolution because of personal religious conviction.
Also, don't say 'believe'. You can't believe in it. You can reject it or accept it.
@darkfur35 Evolution is a fact too. The theory simply tries to explain how it happens. That's all. You really can't deny evolution. The scientists that 'don't believe in evolution' probably don't believe in the way the theory of evolution explains it not evolution itself. If they think that evolution is not real then they shouldn't even be considered scientists. Maybe the theory is wrong, but evolution itself remains a fact.
@pussylumpessru hahas, i guess you don't even know what type of creatures and what type of anatomy exist back in the cambrian, no wonder you make such ignorant statements. Have you ever read up the evolution page on wikipedia before? or have even use wikipedia before? LOL.
@pussylumpessru Look, look, you are the ignorant one first, you don't even have any basic knowledge in science and then you claim you know alot, which actually you don't. Consciousness? Even if science can't explain it yet, does it proof god in anyway? nope. In fact we are not the only animal with consiousness, just in case you don't know that, which i bet you don't know that. And when did you even ask me this question?
2) ouh really? name one anuimal that you know of which have it too. Chimps not allowed to be mentioned.
3) Really? And ID can? maybe ID can try to explain bad design.
4) Seriously, atoms didn't form life directly. Get some basic knowledge in science before sprouting bullshit. Or okay, you want to see how life came from atoms? then i would have to start from the big bang and write a long essay on it, do you want that?
1) I'll start to care until you give me a quote stating "I know a lot"
2) Uh, a fish. Every animal KNOWS that it exists. You're stupid beliefs say it came from atoms doin shit.
3) Explain "bad design". And yes, ID does explain the UNEXPLAINABLE of life and complexity. Weird how hammers have a designer, a piece of paper, but a digestive system came from something with an IQ lower than shit.
2) Ouhs, that consiousness. be specific next time.
3) bad design? lots of it. Let's just stick with humans okay? Laryngeal nerve, vas deferens, wisdom tooth and prostrate glands. Perhaps you would want ID to explain vestial organs and genes, dead genes and atavism too.
4) Molecules are made up of atoms..OUH, YOU THOUGHT MOLECULES WERE ATOMS.LOL. Well, simple put atoms are made up of protons,neutrons and electrons.
3) Uh, you told me this.. Try to get some new ideas, k? :)
4) You just proved my point. You said atoms didn't form life. I asked what molecules were made of. (building blocks of life..technically.) You said atoms and then "lol" What is so funny?
3) Ouhs, that's why you didn't answer the PM after i've show you the facts?
4) Wrong, Atoms didn't form life directly, that's what i've said, but every molecule in you is made up of atom. You mistook atoms as molecules , that's the real funny part..
Now, why the fuck do you even reply here? come on, reply the PM, i am still waiting to see what other explainations you have..
4) Um, no I didn't. Just because a bunch of atoms are molecules, doesn't mean they stop being atoms. If it stops your bitching, molecules made life. Happy? And they didn't, for your information.
Atheism: The belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything..., and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs..., Hhmmmm..., makes perfect sense..., and takes more faith.......
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. And then there's the next step, Getting updated to the best of ones ability to the most current and most Believable theory available. Oh and another thing, Magical? Really? The smoke in mirrors description would be way more relevant in describing Most modern religions.
Christianity, The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
@111E982a ..one thing that was wrong was "jewish zombie who was his own father" Jesus isn't his own father. Other thing, Humans don't have souls. So "evil force from your soul" is also wrong. And that is not Christianity.
@pussylumpessru oh yes you are, according to john 14:28 you are right. but according to John 10:30, i am right. So if we are to believe john 10:30, you will eb wrong, but wait, should we believe in 10:30 or 14:28? Of course humans don't have souls. but souls are biblically accurate and what he mentioned is in the bible. That is christianity, that is the core of the NT, we can really turn this into a "showing the facts" conversation, no shit, you can look it up yourself, i didn't lie abt anything
This has been flagged as spam show
We all love to put our thoughts into words with the hope of some truth and reality to spring out of our reasoning. But to does who believe that natural cause and effects are the engines that produce information inside the DNA, Problems arise. These problems are so huge that we dare not talk about them. We close our eyes and wish them away.
morrisdecat 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great example is bugs:some attack our crops and we use pesticide.Some of the ones who were exposed to pesticide evolve through new generations(in a few YEARS,this has been observed!)so they can live with that pesticide. But the original group away from the crops didn't adapt because they weren't exposed. In fact, bugs evolve so efficient against it that we have a HARD time defending our crops. Evolution... you gotta be an idiot if you believe otherwise. There I said it.
PainSurgeon 1 week ago
yuck
ikawpipa 1 week ago
false
Law19157 1 month ago
fake and gay
EliasCrowe 1 month ago
@ktowers59 the theory was only sustainable when we knew little about life. Though, even then, some prominent scientist laughed at it. Now you have to accept it or risk losing your job. Some are brave enough to do research opposing darwinism. You can go read their opinions etc. if you won't then there us no point in asking me fire anything. Your mind would be already made up.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope
1) Cretinist resorts to global conspiracy theory = fail.
2) Post research, please. (I predict that your perfect record of not being able to back up your bluster will stand)
3) "You can go read their opinions etc. if you won't then there us no point in asking me fire anything."
I'm asking for a link, IDiot!
4) "Your mind would be already made up."
Project much?
5) Your last two posts were NOT in reply to mine so that I would not get an alert. Dishonest much?
LMAO!!
ktowers59 1 month ago 4
@ktowers59 lol. Maybe I will find some sources for you later. I have gotten tired of these arguments and just assume the other person had been following the issue as I have. For one thing, go read about the latest info on a recent whale fossil find. I will post when I care to sure down and do it right. Science is most definitely leaving evo behind
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope "I have gotten tired of these arguments and just assume the other person had been following the issue as I have."
TRANS: "I've imploded, so I'll project my ignorance onto you w/ pure bluster."
I know more about evolution than at least 99.9% of people. I KNOW what I'm talking about. That's why I KNEW you had nothing.
"For one thing, go read about the latest info on a recent whale fossil find."
The one you refuse to give a link to?
rotflmao! A cretinist is NEVER honest
ktowers59 1 month ago 2
@ktowers59 sigh. Kids needing to be spoon-fed everything
Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story bit . ly/v3cElt
Finding of the oldest whale fossil in the world: "Antarctic archaeocete" bit . ly/tPb4Pf
so, basically, within the darwinist framework, this fossil dates back to the same time as the supposed whale ancestors in this video. Just so you understand, A FULLY FORMED WHALE was around at the same time as the supposed ancestors.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope You are the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks for such a wonderful example of the 110% dishonesty of cretinists. Why don't you go beyond the Dishonesty Institute's garaunteed deliberate lies and read the ACTUAL SCIENCE.
It doesn't say what you are claiming AT ALL, you lying MF'er. The Liars for Jebus can ALWAYS be counted on to lie because they have no facts. The Liars for Jebus MUST lie because there are no facts on their side.
ktowers59 1 month ago 5
@ktowers59 I knew you would deny it. The facts are right there for you. Here, this might be easier for you en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans 53million years for Pakicetidae and that fossil was dated 49 million years. What the site said was true of the findings, that you reject it outright simply because of the source shows just what kind of person you are. Continue lying to yourself. As far as science goes, this video is BS like common descent.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope What source? Your links didn't come through. I googled your title and the 1st 10 returns were all creatard Casey Luskin on creatard sites or creatards linking to them. Do I fail to take a professional liar's interpretation as "gospel" when I also looked up the unadulterated story? Damn straight!
You say your site's interpretation was true. Was I right about it being Luskin? Am I right that no actual scientists interpretted it that way? Are you the one lying to yourself? Hmmm?
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 remove the spaces in links =/
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope @semitope Is that all you're going to post? An intellectually honest person would at least acknowledge some of the man y ways that I refuted your claims:
No response on the matter of the recency of early whale fossil discoveries and my clear explanation of how that defeats your "evolution disproved" IDiocy. Hmmm?
No response on my correction of the near universal creatard (intentional?) misunderstanding of evolution that was surely behind said IDiocy. Hmmm?
Wonder why?
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 because everything you think u did and want me to respond to, was in your head
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Thanks for the full concession regarding the fossil find "disproving evolution" or even being anything more than fascinating new evidence in the developing story of early whale evolution. I know it, you know it, and anybody who might read this thread knows it. Actually, we all know two things. First, we all know a dishonest creatard concession when we see one. Second, we all know that you will never be honest about it.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@semitope there is no talking to this Ktowers59 guy, i see how he is being a little snot to you. I mean, i am an atheist to, and HE is fighting with ME! this guy is unbelievable! Just saying, if you want backup whilst dealing with this 12 yr old, hes been pissing me off to, i would love to help. its the dumbest thing ive ever heard, i believe what he believes and he's fighting with me. This kid strives for conflict.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices You're really starting to make me wonder about your true sympathies, Nate. You're offering backup to a pathologically lying, science hating, dangerously deluded, medieval holdover because you think that I'm being "a little snot". I'm doing nothing more than defeating the azzhole with facts and logic and then making sure he knows it.
For whatever personal reasons, you are painfully illogical, can't seem to get anything right, and will never, ever cop to it.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@semitope Inre: the Wiki:
IF Pakicetidae and some Basilosauridae lay on a direct lineage (a HUGE if) and IF Pakicetidae emerged not one second earlier than the known 53MYr old fossils (another HUGE if), then you still have 4MYrs for the differences between them to evolve. I predict that you object to that based upon a calculation done by the tard that sneaked in the only ID paper ever to be published in a real science journal on his last day - behind the backs of all the other editors. Hmmm?
ktowers59 1 month ago
@semitope Most cretinists are willfully ignorant of the concept of branching lineages, most branches going extinct, and coexistence of species that change much more than other related species; e.g., "why are there still monkeys?" (face->palm)
Basilosauridae (all 11 species extinct) branched off the common lineage with Pakicetidae 3 major branches after Pakicetidae did (from a cladogram based on all data sets). Do you understand the implications? Will you admit it? Are you not allowed to?
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 wait, let me make it easy, what do you think the evidence says, and what is the lie that the "cretinists" are telling. Maybe that will break your pathological self deception. The original? The report from a neutral site was given to you. The second link is a government website involved in the finding. I mean, this is not rocket science. Do you never interpret findings for yourself? All the information is right there
semitope 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope The lie is - the only interpretation of the data is "evolution is disproved". All they've proved is that they no nothing of evolution or have ZERO intellectual honesty.
Neutral/gov't sites? Links didn't post. Do they support the creatard conclusion? Hell no! (Unless you think Luskin is neutral)
My guess is that "Do you never interpret findings for yourself? All the information is right there" is the BS non-argument that "the creatard lies are the only interpretation". Hmmm?
ktowers59 1 month ago
@semitope Even if I were to stipulate the truth of this one creatard lie, you would still be doing what all creatards always do - cherry-picking one distorted factoid while ignoring a billion counter-examples. Like just the table of contents from Wiki's page on transitional fossils:
1 Nautiloids to Ammonoids
2 Cephalopods
3 Evolution of insects
4 Evolution of spiders
5 Invertebrates to Fish
6 Chondrichthyes
7 Bony Fish
8 Fish to Tetrapods
tbc
ktowers59 1 month ago
ktowers59 1 month ago
@semitope FYI - Legged "proto-whales" have been known for only a decade. They're virtually all located in remote mountainous tribal regions of Pakistan. Thus, the scientifically literate understand that since new findings are still streaming in and old ones are still being studied, taxonomies are hypotheses whose details vary from tentative to rather conclusive. Even the latter may be revised in light of new discoveries and analysis. Creatard say "Change bad! Unchanging dogma good!"
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 Don't let that bother you though. Who cares what the evidence says, evolution must be true. smfh @ atheists/materialists
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope I care what evidence says. Evidence says that cretinists must lie with every breath, so cretinism must be false.
I dare you to go to the original source material and give the actual scientific opinions stated. You can't do it because your entire miserable life is invested in a lie. So you will say that black is white until we all give up on your sorry azz. And then you'll claim victory like the dishonest little bitch you are.
ktowers59 1 month ago 5
@calzagheisthebest What ever God doeth it shall be forever nothing can be taken from it nor added to it!
TheLewisburgess 1 month ago
Is this a joke?
archilles1195 2 months ago
@archilles1195 no.
JettMane 2 months ago
Wtf was that? Some horrible animation at best and certainly not a convincing progression from a land-dwelling mammal to a water-dwelling mammal. Arranging organisms that are artist's conceptions of what they think they looked like is not evidence that it actually happened in that manner.
Dporebski20 2 months ago
@Dporebski20 wats ur point? so it wasnt a good video, in ur opinion, r u implying something? the skeletal progression of the animals was perfectly reasonable, and no less CONVINCING then a jew of divine property being punished by his dad and then coming back from the dead 3 days later.
natesdevices 2 months ago
OK guys, i believe in evolution too, but there is a lot of needless religion hating here. i mean ur no better then those ass wipes spouting scripture if u stupe to ther level. let them hold on to their faith. its ok to have religion, jus dont talk about it to everyone. people who hate religion and think faith is bad r miserable, wastes of humans. its our nature to believe in bizarre thigs wen we dont understand, so all u atheists stop hating. once again, i believe in evolution.
natesdevices 2 months ago
@natesdevices Just pointing something out you can't believe in evolution for that requires faith. Faith is catergorised as the belief in something controversial to the evidence. Evolution is abundant with evidence. You can either accept evolution or reject it. Rejecting it is just living in denial however.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 2 months ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Evolution has no evidence (common descent). If you are asked for evidence I know what kind you will produce and your belief in evolution means you do not have the logical fortitude to realize why it is not actually evidence. Just sad how fking dumb evolution makes people. You basically downgrade your mind when you think a land mammal will turn into a whale. Do you even know the differences between the 2?
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Please read up on Evolution and Biology before making such ignorant comments.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM lol. Same to you, and don't do it through the eyes of an evolutionist. I am not even joking about this. Evolution is impossible and any 5 year old would know that things don't just morph into other things. There are so many intricate factors that I can't imagine an evolutionist scientist would believe the theory unless they simply had to. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for random processes to produce what we see in organisms. Let that sink in.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope If you would like a detailed explanation of evolution that you can actually understand look up this video: The Theory of Evolution made Easy - Potholer54. If you still have difficulty understanding he has a whole series dedicated towards similar matters
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM lol. if I don't agree with it, I must not understand it? I've been researching this foolishness for months now. Don't bother.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope I did not say that. However now that you mention it I severely doubt you understand evolution otherwise you would not be debating it. Did you watch the video I suggested?
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM you implied it, then confirmed that you think that in your last post. Its a stupid position to take.
I am not watching that foolishness. It is essentially story telling.
watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM
watch?v=cwHzUEWtKq4
watch?v=wnjnIwDkN0o
Some sensible words.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope If you are not prepared to listen to both sides of the argument then you are not fit to debate on any topic. Also your links lead to infinite loading screens.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM you are not paying attention. I already went through learning about evolution
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope You Claim that you understand evolution but I have not seen any proof of this understanding from you yet besides the very crude statement "animals can't morph into other animals".
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@semitope Anyway I'm off. Here's the vid again, I would advise giving it a thorough look; The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Potholer54. (He also has another video explaining Natural Selection just previous to this one)
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM I have not seen any proof that you understand it either. It's really hilarious how people jump to "you don't understand it". I know what NS is. smh
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope What kind of question is that? Because you can't answer it you're relying on my knowledge of Evolution to answer my own question. Is there any layer you won't sink to?
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@semitope Anyway this isn't about my understanding. You're the one who started the argument and you should know what you are talking about. So far you have not shown even a basic understanding.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago 2
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM ok dude. Keep telling yourself that. I wasnt actually asking for you to show your knowledge. I was telling you how stupid it was to be saying I wasn't showing mine in fking youtube comments. As if evolution is even that complicated; the only reason you are asking is because I do not think it is a valid theory. Your mind automatically recoils into its shell and starts accusing me of not understanding. Tell that to all the scientists I can show you who think the same as me.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope I am merely asking for you to provide an explanation to how you interpreted the theory of Evolution which you have so far failed to do so.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago 2
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM I have not "interpreted" it any way. I simply said that the mechanisms are not capable of what they are said to have done. You can't even consider that, all you are about is whether or not the mechanisms are real and from that you jump to evolution must be true. The vid you told me to watch is stupid btw. The guy is simply story telling with nothing to support him.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope You have not picked out any flaws so far you are merely claiming that it is impossible without offering an explanation as to why it is impossible. Which mechanisms are "not capable"?
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@semitope Also he is not story telling. He references everything and uses scientific studies and articles to back him up.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago 2
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Mutations are mostly harmful or benign. bit . ly/rQCdcM Natural selection won't have anything to work with. NS is also more likely to degrade variety in information than produce organisms capable of it. There is no scientific consensus on how self replicating molecules could have come about and even with those, the odds are still not in the favor of your beliefs. You guys really don't seem to have a clue about what you are saying when you talk about evolution.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Mutations are changes in genetic sequence within a cell's genome. No Mutations are not mostly harmful as you put it but they can be. Natural Selection alters the organism through a non-random process. Differences in traits cause some organisms to mate at a higher rate than other organisms without the trait. The environment does the selecting. Animals replicate themselves and every replication isn't perfect leading to to more variation.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM I said they are either harmful or benign. Harmful is far more likely when not benign. I know what natural selection does, and counter to what the idiots tell you, it isn't sh*t without mutations. The bottleneck is random therefore the entire process still requires that information comes about entirely randomly before it is selected for. Evolution goes in no direction and has no aim so it is a random attempt to get the next step every time.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Yes Mutations are the raw material in DNA for natural selection to work upon. Mutations are a key part in Evolution. Evolution does go in many directions actually. There are three key factors in Evolution. Natural Selection, Mutations and Genetic Drift. Mutations and Genetic drift are random but trying to classify evolution as an accident does not change what it is and what it does.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago 2
@semitope actually it is a common misconception that occurrence of mutations are random. In physics, studies like chaos theory illustrate how the world is deterministic, and things only appear random to us because we don't understand all the underlying variables underneath. Analogy is like trying to find out the next number given a very complex function, one which we have no current way to describe.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@semitope Second, if mutations are indeed random, we will expect them to distribute randomly across the genome. But obviously they don't. So mathematically and biologically speaking, occurrences of mutations are not random. And lastly, we have already seen novel functions coming out by mutations, so this shows evolution does have a direction. Creationists, at this point, argue that the direction is limited by God so macro-evolution cannot occur.
Casshyr 1 month ago
@semitope You're apparently quoting cretinist propaganda, assuming it's true and need not be defended.
Most mutations may be harmful. but they are deselected, so you have no point there.
The only IDiots to ever say that NS proceeds w/o mutation - and more commonly vice versa - are you IDiots!
The "bottleneck" remark makes no sense. Here's new information in two steps:
CHIMP
Gene duplication
CHIMP CHIMP
Point mutation
CHIMP CHUMP
Your last statement? Internally contradictory!
ktowers59 1 month ago 2
@ktowers59 gj simplifying it. Because the word chimp and chump have any representative value for DNA. You guys look at life so primitively. Might as well be back in Darwin's time when people thought life came from rotting garbage.
If you need to believe the theory, I understand. You really cannot be a respectable atheist to yourself without evolution. Even if you cannot provide proof or back it up
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope
1) Any LOGICAL argument for the analogy = invalid?
You followed w/:
2) Your std content-free insults & unfounded assertions.
3) "Even if you cannot provide proof or back it up"
You guys have brass ones, I'll give you that. 1st, you speak of "proof" like the scientific illiterate that you are. 2nd, you ignore - or are ignorant of - a dozen fields of study that 100% support ToE in billions of interconnected ways. 3rd - Where's YOUR EVIDENCE that I've asked for? Hmmm?
ktowers59 1 month ago 2
@ktowers59 a word is far less complicated than DNA.
they do not %100 support evolution. Even palaeontologists do not bother with it so much anymore
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope "a word is far less complicated than DNA"
A BS non-argument that STRONGLY implies that you no nothing of genetics!
"they do not %100 support evolution."
I know I'm likely wasting my time but SHOW ME THE PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE!
"Even palaeontologists do not bother with it so much anymore"
Ignorance or deceit? I honestly can't tell which, but either one is breathtaking. I know I'm wasting my time but ANY PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE TO BACK THAT UP?
You're the IDiot of IDiots.
ktowers59 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
Comment removed
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM all you guys ever do is ignore detailed biology and make claims about what must have happened grossly. Somehow the mammal morphed into a whale, but you never bother to go into detail scientifically (because it is impossible) on how it would happen. This is schoolboy science at best. Take on all the changes that would be necessary and stop saying "it just happened" or Time Did It™
semitope 1 month ago
@natesdevices - OK - as long as the religious merely quietly maintained their faith. Many go far beyond that:
1) Seek to enshrine their interpretation of their religion's distortions of morality as the default view and often seek to back it up with legal sanctions.
2) Sometimes subtly, other times not, are bigoted and discriminate and teach bigotry and discrimination.
3) It is "our nature to believe in bizarre things when we don't understand", but we DO understand. They refuse to!
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 you don't understand sh*t. Evolution is a materialist creation myth. No evidence but circumstantial and unrelated evidence, it is shown to be scientifically impossible yet people chug on. The whale evolution could not have happened and a recent fossil found supposedly dates to around the time of the pre-whale ancestors you guys think existed. The fully formed whale was supposedly around at the time of the ancestor. Just dumb, but go ahead believing your garbage
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Lots of bluster, but no substance. The claims you make in your posts and the questions asked display a staggering ignorance. No one who had a clue about the subject would ever make these claims or even ask those questions. Here's an example:
"it is shown to be scientifically impossible" in this context only serves to show that you haven't a clue how science works. Or basic logic. Dying to see your "proof". (snicker)
Dumb? Link to that fossil find, please. (snicker)
ktowers59 1 month ago 3
@ktowers59 scientifically impossible is meant to say that current scientific knowledge does not support the myth of evolution.
note I really don't care whether you are willing to concede this or not. I have seen enough to know that people are not in the least bit honest of logical when it comes to this. You've filled your head with words like "IDiots" and have managed to convince yourself that anyone who disagrees does not understand the theory... or were you brainwashed? u atheist, right?
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope "current scientific knowledge does not support the myth of evolution" = asserting w/o evidence" and is 100% false. (I'm sure that you'll also make the claim that science gives evolution denial no credence because they're biased. Having your cake and eating it, too?)
EVIDENCE, PLEASE.
"u atheist, right?" Is this your "logic"? Elsewhere in the thread are theists who don't deny science, so your point is . . . .?
Oh, and that "proof' and that fossil find, please (snicker)
ktowers59 1 month ago 2
@ktowers59 The reason they refuse to is because they have been dreadfed an image of creation for 5500 years. They are perfectly comfortable with their belief systems and as long as they dont speak down on others who disagree they are just as entitled to their beliefs as you are. The same goes for you atheists. Beliefs are like politics, in the unlikely scenario where either party has any idea what their talking about, neither one is skilled enough to explain it to the other. work it out folks.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices I disagree:
They are NOT comfortable w/ their beliefs. Their denial and sophistry are products of fear, as you implied with "dreadfed". Fear that they might stop believing and fry.
The DO speak down on others! All the time! In fact, demonizing rationalists is sop. This particular IDiot is a classic example. Reading his posts; all he does is assert w/o evidence and insult.
Atheism is NOT a belief.
And no one can explain what is actively being dismissed!
ktowers59 1 month ago 2
@ktowers59 i get what your saying but my point is that atheists dont have to hate god and religion, they just have to ignore it. Why do you care what these diluted people believe? we all know were right and thats what matters. The church will fail within the next hundred years so lets just content ourselves with that.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices No, you don;t get what I'm saying. You're ignoring the points I made in my first response to you, for one thing. Ever read Hitchens? Any idea what religious bigotry and the irrationallity of "faith" have done throughout history?! As for your wishful thinking - It's exactly that. And it doesn't do me or anyone else any good right now, does it?
So apparently you shrugged off 9/11? And the millions dead in Africa because the church told them condoms cause AIDS?
ktowers59 1 month ago 2
@ktowers59 what are you talking about with 9/11? I dont like christianity either but not all religions are bad. If everyone believed in atheist principles then they would find new ways to distort it to. Its not religion, its human nature. As a species we like to find ways to justify our desires for power. Its human instinct.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices Duh! You say "just ignore religion", so I guess you don't care about these deluded people. Therefore, I assume the crap there delusions result in are OK by you.
PS - I don't know of a single "atheist principle". Not believing in something fantastical for which there is zero evidence isn't exactly a principle and that is all atheists have in common. Nothing to distort.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 The definition of atheism via encyclopedia is the belief that god doesnt exist, if you dont abide to that concept, idea, belief, or PRINCIPLE you are not atheist. 9/11 was the result of of terrorist groups weaving their fanatical ideas into a peaceful beliefs sytem and the real reason for crusades were the result o f rome wanting to expand their empire, not teaching religion. If everyone was atheist it would be treated as a religion to.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices Belief is concluding w/o evidence. Atheism is concluding on the evidence - lack thereof - and is a rational conclusion. It is also a negative one. Every religion makes positive claims. Atheism doesn't. There is no conceivable way to make anything remotely like a religion out of the one - and only one - shared "principle" that there's no reason to believe in god(s).
Peaceful?! Have you read any of this stuff? Either one? Are you effing serious?!
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 have you? islam in it's bear form is a beautiful thing. Any way though, if the whole world was atheist the rather then argue over god peole would argue over how to lead their secular lives. Who is the best atheist? How should i judge my actions? ect. People would form groups that all stem from the belief that there is no god. Conflict is unavoidable.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices Don't you understand English or do you not even read my posts?
1) The Koran glorifies and encourages conversion by the sword and hatred and discrimination against infidels. Let's not even get started on the buybull!
2) Your points on atheism leading to issues similar to religion's ignore what I've already told you and are asinine in the extreme. Fighting to be the "best person who doesn't collect stamps"? Seriously?! Besides, the god concept would be meaningless.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 no, you dont understand, a fact that has been made prevalent by your short temper and closed minded thinking. Not every atheist is as "level headed" as you would believe them to be. There is no, not a one, reason that humanity wouldnt find just one, but numerous ways to divide a secular world. You, like most atheists, dillude yourself with the notion that as long as there is no religion, conflict will not occur just because you all believe the same think. A foolish notion indeed.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices You're certainly stubborn in your willful failure to understand. Ever consider getting religion? One more time for the hard of thinking:
Yes, there would be numerous ways that a secular world would be divided, but NOT A DAMN ONE WOULD HAVE A DAMN THING TO DO WITH ATHEISM, you mental midget!
"You ... dillude yourself with the notion that as long as there is no religion, conflict will not occur ..."
A dumbass strawman or an intentional lie? Either way - goodbye, troll.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 this is why i dont like atheists. Your short tempered, obnoxious and so obsessed in your ways that even if a new idead of thinking helped to prove you right, you would ignore it, because your just as stubborn, and aggressive as the religious peoiple you hate. Alll youve done is prove my point. if the whole world was atheist there would still be violence. SO WHY DOES IT MATTER IF PEOPLE HAVE RELIGION YOU RETARD? Damn it your annoying. calling everyone a troll despite insulting everyone
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices "if the whole world was atheist there would still be violence. SO WHY DOES IT MATTER IF PEOPLE HAVE RELIGION YOU RETARD?"
Your critical thinking skills are worthy theism. Again, for the hard of thinking:
By analogy: "If there were no murderers, there'd still be violence. SO WHY DOES IT MATTER IF PEOPLE MURDER YOU RETARD?"
"Damn it your annoying"
Damn, you're stubborn in your willful failure to understand!
Troll =/= "posts insults"
Troll = "not engaging honestly"
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 you trolle first, i have been trying to avoid insulting you ti keep this civilized but you cant seem to do the same. Look, the fact that you are even arguing with me proves my point. Your an atheists, and im technically an "atheist". As a society of atheists, the world would be divided between people like you, the kind who hate religion, and people like me, the kind who think its fine. Your kind would hate and alienate my kind. were both atheists, and were fighting, why wouldnt others
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices You're so effing illogical that I don't like being associated with you. I correct your mistaken def of "troll" - you repeat it! You repeat that different kinds of atheists would argue based on their position on religion when your premise was NO RELIGION - AFTER I've explained the stupidity of it! And then, you wrap up with another implied argument that eliminating insanely devisive religion (which I supported as such) wouldn't help because there would still be SOME devisiveness!
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 Just because you reexplain something doesnt mean your right, I take it by your excessive use of big words and defensive, condescending insults that you are about 12, give or take a few years. If not, then this is sad. It doesnt matter, it seems i cant stress this enough to you, how few regulations, concepts, or rules ther are in a belief, it WILL be divided, thats instinctual human nature, you cant deny that. human nature is illogical.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices "human nature is illogical."
Yep!
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 Agreed! :)
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices Are you proud that you embrace it so?
ktowers59 1 month ago
@natesdevices And atheism is NOT a belief, you unbelievably dense dufus!
If there were no religion, the lack of a belief in god(s) that EVERYONE shared would no more be a source of division, bigotry, and violence than a lack of belief in unicorns!
How old are you - mentally - 5?
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 atheism is true, i totally agree, but it's what you believe, christians genuinely believe in their ridiculous lunacy. So, despite it's truth, it's only fair to call it a belief. I know it sucks, but what can you do? Im going out, somy response to your next post will be delayed.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices Don't bother. If you truly can't understand what anti-atheists willfully refuse to understand, our conversation is over. On top of all of the countless illogical things you've said, ignored the refutation of, and repeated again, you're still sticking with the "not stamp collecting is a hobby, bald is a hair color" argument that failing to believe something (for which there is no evidence; i.e., on faith) is itself "belief" rather than the default negative (and logical) position.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 look, buddy, there are worse things in life then religion, can you at least agree to that? i dont see why we cant coexist
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices First, "look, buddy" is not an excuse for your perfect record of logical failures & refusal to acknowledge same.
"There are worse things in life" isn't a ringing endorsement. I suspect that you didn't mean to imply the obvious connotation because you don't grasp how bad it really is. If just insisting that all science is an evil conspiracy theory isn't bad enough, I can list things far worse. You don't see them because religion's evils have been "normalized".
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 Jesus christ, i see theres no getting through to you, i should have figured i wouldn't be able to change the mind of a religious zealot such as your self, go enjoy your self fulfilling prophecy of a world that cant be good while religion survives, i hope you find happiness in the living hell you must experience every day.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices Name one cogent argument that you think SHOULD have "gotten through to me". You call me a religious zealot, just like any anti-atheist is guaranteed to do. You fail to acknowledge both the science-bashing and all the other implied evils that you, just like any anti-atheist is guaranteed not to acknowledge if I did list them. You've kept your perfect record of illogical responses intact.
Again - name a cogent argument that I'm "not getting"; don't repeat fallacies.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 good bye, live in your awful, miserable religion filled world.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices "live in your awful, miserable religion filled world."
You're actually correct, but I know that you're in your utter defiance of all reason, you're actually continuing to call black white just as I predicted.
Perhaps you justify it by applying some personal definition of religion - JUST LIKE THE ANTI-ATHEISTS ALWAYS DO - so that it can incorporate atheism. Words have meaning, moron.
They do it to try to paint us as just as irrational as them.
You? Pigheadedness.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 You must be miserable at social occasions. I am no more anti atheist then i am anti religious, maybe you would understand this if you werent the defensive closed minded 12 year old that you are. I used to be like you, a sad, arrogant hater of status quo thinking, partly because that was who i was, partly because i liked being the smartest person in the room. Maybe you will mature, maybe you wont. Your like the hyper defensive jews in my home town, "agree with me or your anti me!"
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices Egads, you are thick! Where the eff did I say you were anti-atheist, you mental midget?! All I've said - AND YOU PROVE WITH E-V-E-R-Y POST - is that you're as stoopidly illogical and as childishly denialist as they are.
If you were EVER the smartest person in the room, you were either alone or at a mental midget convention.
My apologies to all mental midgets for comparing you to this drooling moron.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 "LIKE THE ANTI-ATHEISTS ALWAYS DO". there were several other instances but the fact that you actually cant recall or dont count them does wonders for any one's opinions of you. Look twelvey, I get that your a troll, i get that you dont like me, and i get that whatever friends you may have are fantastic to overlook your middle school bitch personality. You can call me a mental midget all you want, but that doesnt change the fact that others would prefer me to a closeminded ass like you
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices ILLOGICAL AS EVER!!!!!!!
Listen up, "LIKE THE ANTI-ATHEISTS ALWAYS DO" is NOT "you are one". It means you're as STOOPID as one. Get it?!
BTW, calling me a kid, troll and closed minded for being right revealing your STOOPIDITY is projection of the highest order. Also, pure bluster. If you could form a cogent argument (and post once in a while w/o elemental errors), you wouldn't have to stoop to that.
Also, I'm 52, professional, IQ of 150+. Your batting 100.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 im done, i dont care anymore. Go live in your awful world.
Are you really 52? wow
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices You should. The world isn't awful because truth is logically defend w/ facts. It's because too many people speak BS because they're ignorant, duped, illogical, & cognitively biased & then get PO'ed, whine, & dig in their heels when they can't refute reality as defended by logic and data.
Yes. I'm 52. I care about my kids and grandkids riding the planet down the toilet because the natesdevices & semitopes are sophists & reality deniers.
Don't you see the link?
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 If you are concerned for your grand kids then you should be concerned about war, climate change, economy, society. Not because of a world view which loses credibility and followers every year. As i said before, in this day and age there are far worse things then religion, not that it isnt irritating. i dont deny reality, if anything i firmly grasp it, i understand your concerns, but i feel they are misplaced. You seem like a good person. if your willing, we could agree to disagree. :)
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices You fail to see the link. Religion is the dominant "gateway drug" to irrationallity, delusion, and danger of all sorts. From your list alone:
War - very often religiously driven, religion invoked to inspire loyalty and military service and as a salve for the loss of life and fear of death.
Climate change - Denial of it has an uncanny correlation w/ creationism and religion in general.
All of the things that are "worse than religion" are exacerbated by it.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@ktowers59 by the way, im not anti atheist, your anti religious, and im not, so you seek to deter me. I am an atheist, i think the shit we deal with from christians is horrible, not being allowed in scouts, offenses from the army, and the overall dislike for us in normal society, and so on. Look, i dont like EITHER atheists or religious people that much, not one more then the other. both groups are unapproachable idiots, not making more sense then the other. im not Anti atheist.
natesdevices 1 month ago
@natesdevices Yes, I'm anti-religious and I've given or strongly hinted at why. You yourself mention some reasons and admit that you think they're horrible, yet - illogical as ever - you claim not to be anti-religious. Of course, you're so illogical that you say you're an atheist and then that you don't like yourself because you;re an unapproachable idiot!
I "seek to deter" you because you're so stupid that you repeat STOOPID anti-atheist talking points AFTER being corrected!
ktowers59 1 month ago
@natesdevices "... EITHER atheists or religious people ... not making more sense then the other."
I see your problem - You think you're a typical atheist, but you're a rarity - the first of your kind I've ever encountered! You make no more sense than the lowest common denominator theist. If you were a theist arguing for theism and bashing atheism, you'd perfectly exemplify their utter lack of critical thinking skills and perfect record of refusing to acknowledge all critiques.
ktowers59 1 month ago
@Dporebski20 You're right, the video itself is not evidence. The thousands of fossils and DNA sequencing that back it up, however, are.
fdasherv 2 months ago
fuck religion it's like cancer
calzagheisthebest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 3 months ago
@achilles197474 hey kiddo, you believe in god HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGHHH
calzagheisthebest 2 months ago
Evolution is a bad fairy tale, told to little children to scare them.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 I think you meant the story of hell. Like when your mommy said "little darkfur, God is watching, so when you touch your little peepee God will send you to hell". That is the fairy tale you are thinking of.
bg12082007 3 months ago
@bg12082007 You hope there isnt a hell.
Evoultion is a silly story. A real scientist would never believe it.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 Yeah and the bible has magic hair, talking animals, dragons and fairies in it.......So what is your point again?? Its a make believe to keep idiots in line
Xatasha6611 3 months ago
@Xatasha6611 Are you talking about the Lord of the Rings? Or the magic of evolution turning bugs into dogs.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 Lord of the rings is a interesting story and a much better background story for their fairies and monsters. The bible just rips off other cultures and stories. Yes your bible is a fairy tale with talking animals, magic hair, dragons and satyrs or giants too. Also take a few course in science before trying to disprove a theory you don't understand.
Xatasha6611 3 months ago
@darkfur35 Bugs have evolved as long as dogs, dummy. You don't understand science or evolution.
Most scientists accept God, all of them accpet Evolution.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Most scientists dont believe in evolution.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 How do you know? I would bet you have never seen a real scientist.
Astronomers say the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Geologists say the earth is millions of years old.
Paleotologists see evolution in the fossils every day.
It is the backbone of Biology.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz How do you know? Evolution isnt the backbone of anything.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 It is called Science and Logic. two things creationists don't understand.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Im sure creationists think the same thing about those who believe in evolution.
Evolution is not based on science & logic but the misinterpretation of data to support their ideas.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 No, Science does not work that way. Yes they fudge the data, they are only human, but it is open to peer review. People, like creationists, can point out the mistakes and challange the data. Like trying to say the evolution is prevented by the 2nd Law. Then scientists prove creatards are full of crap.
gregrutz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkfur35 You could not be more wrong. You are an idiot. God can suck my cock.
hitlarspenis 3 months ago
@darkfur35 The fuck did you get that bullshit from? Over 99% of scientists (in the relevant fields) accept evolution. Not to mention most of those less than 1% don't accept evolution because of personal religious conviction.
Also, don't say 'believe'. You can't believe in it. You can reject it or accept it.
TyrannoFan 3 months ago
@TyrannoFan Your comment is very unscientific...Most real scientists dont believe in evolution. The is a fact.
darkfur35 3 months ago
@darkfur35 Evolution is a fact too. The theory simply tries to explain how it happens. That's all. You really can't deny evolution. The scientists that 'don't believe in evolution' probably don't believe in the way the theory of evolution explains it not evolution itself. If they think that evolution is not real then they shouldn't even be considered scientists. Maybe the theory is wrong, but evolution itself remains a fact.
TyrannoFan 3 months ago
O_O fat wales? Its that how they look or is this video squished?
HelloMidnightChaos 4 months ago
@HelloMidnightChaos
Wales both look and sounds dumb
TheGoatherdGod 4 months ago
Very well done, I just hope that no theists try to say that it's all a lie
sofiadragon1979 5 months ago
From the land to the sea, then back to land.
jetsal 5 months ago
@jetsal Whales didn't go back to land.
shagoosty 4 months ago
@shagoosty
Yes they did, in America. I see whales walking among us all the time here.
jetsal 4 months ago
@jetsal Touche sir. Touche.
shagoosty 4 months ago
Seriously? You guys are in a fight over the definition of atoms and molecules?
chigeh 6 months ago
GAY VID!
wluc071 7 months ago
@pussylumpessru hahas, i guess you don't even know what type of creatures and what type of anatomy exist back in the cambrian, no wonder you make such ignorant statements. Have you ever read up the evolution page on wikipedia before? or have even use wikipedia before? LOL.
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a says the guy who couldn't answer my question about how evolution conjured up consciousness.
pussylumpessru 7 months ago
@pussylumpessru Look, look, you are the ignorant one first, you don't even have any basic knowledge in science and then you claim you know alot, which actually you don't. Consciousness? Even if science can't explain it yet, does it proof god in anyway? nope. In fact we are not the only animal with consiousness, just in case you don't know that, which i bet you don't know that. And when did you even ask me this question?
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a
1) I never claimed I know a lot. Check my comments yourself.
2) I know that we are not the only ones with consciousness? (this is irrelevant)
3) Science will never explain it.
4) I asked you how atoms formed life a while ago.
Get with itt
pussylumpessru 7 months ago
@pussylumpessru
1) you didn't? your comments proved otherwised.
2) ouh really? name one anuimal that you know of which have it too. Chimps not allowed to be mentioned.
3) Really? And ID can? maybe ID can try to explain bad design.
4) Seriously, atoms didn't form life directly. Get some basic knowledge in science before sprouting bullshit. Or okay, you want to see how life came from atoms? then i would have to start from the big bang and write a long essay on it, do you want that?
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a
1) I'll start to care until you give me a quote stating "I know a lot"
2) Uh, a fish. Every animal KNOWS that it exists. You're stupid beliefs say it came from atoms doin shit.
3) Explain "bad design". And yes, ID does explain the UNEXPLAINABLE of life and complexity. Weird how hammers have a designer, a piece of paper, but a digestive system came from something with an IQ lower than shit.
4) Oh? So what are simple molecules made of?
pussylumpessru 7 months ago
@pussylumpessru
1) i can't possibly your entire comment? =)
2) Ouhs, that consiousness. be specific next time.
3) bad design? lots of it. Let's just stick with humans okay? Laryngeal nerve, vas deferens, wisdom tooth and prostrate glands. Perhaps you would want ID to explain vestial organs and genes, dead genes and atavism too.
4) Molecules are made up of atoms..OUH, YOU THOUGHT MOLECULES WERE ATOMS.LOL. Well, simple put atoms are made up of protons,neutrons and electrons.
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a
1) You can't possibly what my entire comment..
2) Odense University Hospital (Switzerland)
3) Uh, you told me this.. Try to get some new ideas, k? :)
4) You just proved my point. You said atoms didn't form life. I asked what molecules were made of. (building blocks of life..technically.) You said atoms and then "lol" What is so funny?
pussylumpessru 7 months ago
@pussylumpessru
1) quote*
2) wtf?
3) Ouhs, that's why you didn't answer the PM after i've show you the facts?
4) Wrong, Atoms didn't form life directly, that's what i've said, but every molecule in you is made up of atom. You mistook atoms as molecules , that's the real funny part..
Now, why the fuck do you even reply here? come on, reply the PM, i am still waiting to see what other explainations you have..
111E982a 7 months ago
@111E982a
1) Ugh, you're a fucking retard.
2) I knew you were going to say that.
3) Get a girlfriend ..
4) Um, no I didn't. Just because a bunch of atoms are molecules, doesn't mean they stop being atoms. If it stops your bitching, molecules made life. Happy? And they didn't, for your information.
pussylumpessru 7 months ago
@pussylumpessru facepalm.
111E982a 7 months ago
0:36 WTF?!?!?
blitzwack 8 months ago
Comment removed
john17972 8 months ago
@john17972 no no, this was evolution.
eagleeye2102 8 months ago
Atheism: The belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything..., and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs..., Hhmmmm..., makes perfect sense..., and takes more faith.......
ebragg49 8 months ago
@ebragg49 –noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. And then there's the next step, Getting updated to the best of ones ability to the most current and most Believable theory available. Oh and another thing, Magical? Really? The smoke in mirrors description would be way more relevant in describing Most modern religions.
petelittle 8 months ago
@ebragg49 Come on, study evolution first.
MrJohnnyrace 8 months ago
@ebragg49 Atheism: lack of belief.
shagoosty 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity, The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago 7
@MrTruthAddict that is so wrong....
pussylumpessru 8 months ago
@pussylumpessru it's actually what the bible meant. Except he used terms that are more factual, realistic and fitting.
111E982a 8 months ago
@111E982a ..one thing that was wrong was "jewish zombie who was his own father" Jesus isn't his own father. Other thing, Humans don't have souls. So "evil force from your soul" is also wrong. And that is not Christianity.
pussylumpessru 8 months ago
@pussylumpessru oh yes you are, according to john 14:28 you are right. but according to John 10:30, i am right. So if we are to believe john 10:30, you will eb wrong, but wait, should we believe in 10:30 or 14:28? Of course humans don't have souls. but souls are biblically accurate and what he mentioned is in the bible. That is christianity, that is the core of the NT, we can really turn this into a "showing the facts" conversation, no shit, you can look it up yourself, i didn't lie abt anything
111E982a 8 months ago