Hey christfags! So you fail to accept evolution. That's

>>733928024
cant argue if I agree

>>733928024
Most christfags don't deny evolution, so they won't be debating your strawman.

>>733928024

Oh shit, no one wants to debate!

Shocking.

Turns out that most people already accept evolution and those that don't know they can't debate it for shit

>>733928242
This. Seems to me like evolution is the "how," and God is the "why" and "who."

>>733928242

It's not a straw man imbecile. It's a position held by many creationists. Just because there are christians who do accept evolution doesn't make this a fabricated argument.

Shit, that must have been embarrassing

>>733928350


For sure. If you have faith that god exists then there is no reason why he couldn't have created life through evolution. Provided you ignore genesis

>>733928350
basics of those who believe god was behind evolution. Not that im one of them, just know of people like that

>>733928024
Those two on the right

Good god.

>>733928024
your mom is fagget

>>733928562

your face is faggggit

>>733928354
It's not that there are Christians who accept evolution, it's that the vast majority do. Thus, the premise of your argument is false. Not only that, you're calling people ignorant without you yourself knowing their position. That makes you a hypocrite.

>>733928487
Your other right.

>>733928024
You are a moron. The leading scientists in the world wouldn't call it fact. It isn't a theory or even a hypothesis. It isn't testable nor falsefiable. Read Karl Popper, genius. Please go back to 7th grade science and this time? Pay attention.

Oh, yes. It is normal at your age to get hair on your genitals, armpits and face, if male.

>>733928826
not op, but the only hypocrites are people calling themselves christians while nitpicking parts of their holy book that don't suite them

>>733928354
Not every christian is Michele Bachmann

>>733928024
I'll take all four, thank you!

>>733928826
Are you fucking stupid, guy? I'm clearly speaking to those people who DO deny evolution.

Thus the premise of my argument is entirely legitimate because it is indeed an argument espoused by a segment of the population.

lol just stop. Unless you really like humiliating yourself...

>>733929017
spotted the retard.

my 4th year evolutionary biology class literally started with a slide that said "EVOLUTION IS A FACT" in bold, then went on to explain it's called a theory as in scientific theorem.

>>733929095
>the only hypocrites
I get that you're trying to emphasize the severity of their condition, so I'm not taking this literally, but I can't say I agree with you either. Everyone is a hypocrite, and hypocrisy isn't necessarily wrong. Often hypocrisy is a sign that there is a flaw in one's moral reasoning, and that their beliefs need to be reappraised. Being a hypocrite is thus an opportunity for growth, not all the time but often.

>>733928024
well seeing as 4 is a devolution from 3 idk

>>733928418
>Provided you ignore genesis
I'm the Anon you responded to, and I don't ignore Genesis. I just think there's more leeway in the word "yom" ("day") than one 24-hour period.

>>733929234
If you were speaking to evolution deniers, then you should have said so. Instead you called out a group of people who usually don't have that belief.

>>733929017


lol fuck off, halfwit. The leading scientist in the world would call it a scientific theory. Or as far as science is concerned, a fact.

It's easily falsifiable. Show me a dog in a fossil bed with trilobites and evolution is in trouble. Show enough anomalies like that and the theory must be scrapped.

What's more you can make predictions based off evolution that are then verified.

Good god. Educate yourself a little before you shoot your mouth off

>>733929333
ye ok i agree but they are hypocrites. you cannot takeout parts of a book your religion proclaims as the literal word of god because they dont sit well with you, but use other passages to moralize shit into "right" or "wrong" so it again suites your worldview. either go full "orthodox monk living in athos" tier, or accept religion is a relic of the past. anything else does make you a hypocrite

>>733929414


Well you can sort of make excuses for the elapsed time, but the order or creation is at odds with the fossil record

>>733929268
Fine. Tell me about Popper, testability and falsifiability. It is truly science 101. Go ahead, please enlighten all /b/. Your argument REALLY is the slide said so?????

Really?

REALLY??????

>>733928024
2nd is best left to right

Fuck one, kill one, marry one...... go

>>733929417
>So you fail to accept evolution.


Are
You
Fucking
Retarded?!

The group to whom i am addressing the challenge is right fucking there!
If you are a christian who accepts evolution then obviously "So you fail to accept evolution." does not apply to you.

lol shit. This is getting sad

>>733928024
Try Islam.... OP

>>733929414
>>733928418
>if you just ignore the word of god then the word of god makes total sense
niggas...

>>733929496
You're arguing from silence, proving a negative? And you back into certainties, you don't prove them??? Wow. How was community college?

And show me transitional life forms or your fucked.

Crap, it's like a kitten playing with a ball of yarn.

>>733928024
Evolution is a theory
The Evolutionary theory
Probably the right one but still a theory
Creationism is highly likely bullshit
But you can't call evolution "fact"

>>733929825
I think the only thing sad here is your attitude. Instead of accepting that you made a mistake you're trying to pretend you meant something else and that it matters even if you did. Let me quote you:
>Hey christfags!
>So you fail to accept evolution.

You could have said hey christfags who fail to accept evolution, but you didn't. Instead you stated that christfags fail to accept evolution.

Own up /b/ro.

>>733930053
OP getting frustrated. Mama must have told him he was special and he believed her. Next he'll take on world peace, global warming, the common cold, perpetual motion and understanding women. Knock yourself out, OP. Be happy with your smug anger

>>733929665
>tell me about popper

popper is a postmodernist philosopher, not a scientist. i dont see how his epistemological semantics have anything to do with evolution. his views aren't "science 101", they're fringe epistemological musings no one in an actual scientific field knows or cares about.

evolution is proven through the fossil record and through observable microbe evolution. it's easily falsifiable, all you'd need is 1 organism in a fossil stroma that shouldn't be there.

how about you actually let people who study biology for a living do the biology, and you do whatever the fuck you are trained to do?

>>733928024
Not a believer, but with the same reasoning as you have against religion, prove evolution to me

>>733930053


lol what the fuck are you babbling about?
If you want to debate some evidence for evolution just say the word, hot shot.

If you want some transitional forms

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

>>733930191


It's a scientific theory. As far as science goes, that's as close to fact as it gets

>>733930292


lol so you assign me an opinion and then criticize me for it?

cool strategy, kiddo.

Is that how you're planning to distract from how badly you just made a fool of yourself?

File: lols.jpg (34KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 413x395px

>>733928024

lol all these fucking retarded religious apologist backpedaling and attempting to explain how evolution can coexist with beliefs that state the planet is only 6000 years old.

>>733928024
C'mon OP, sorry if you can't stand up to your shitty theory

>>733930408


If you're interested in hearing some evidence for evolution i would be happy to provide some

File: IMG_0829.jpg (21KB, 476x354px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 476x354px

>>733930191
You retard. When evolution is still an occurring phenomenon, its fact. Argue what life began as or how humans arrived. You can't argue facts.

http://pnas.org/content/112/52/E7204.abstract

>>733930656


....what?
Was that a weird way of challenging the theory? If so, would you care to debate the evidence?

>>733930191
>it is a theory

theory doesn't mean the same thing in scientific talk that it does in everyday talk

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

>>733930670
Sure thing, prove it to me, and I will believe it, but I must also state, I work in scientific fact, and thorough research, don't send me links here, YOU go ahead and prove it

>>733928024
I had to explain evolution to my gf once.

That was a difficult conversation.

>>733930753
Sure let's debate,

>>733930737
>You can't argue facts

why not, arguing facts in national policy in the us

>>733930625
I didn't assign you an opinion, I took offense to the false assumption of your post.Tell me, do you call people names at the end of your posts so people reply more or less?

>>733928354
Creationists make up a very small part of modern christianity. They're, in my humble opinion, very ignorant and not open to anything remotely new.

>>733930783
are you retarded? you want him to write a 30 page essay on 4chan transcribing evolutionary biology textbooks so some uneducated hick gets convinced?

I hope you're b8ing

I believe it and I'm catholic. Imagine if the Bible attempted to explain evolution in scientific terms at that point in time. The people would be like dafuq. I think God realized he needed to put it into a form that we could understand and follow. We were a new relatively species after all :p idk just my thoughts lol

>>733930783
>>733930864

Sure!
So what we're going to do here is i'm going to present evidence for evolution and you're going to supply an alternative explanation from a creation standpoint that describes the evidence just as well or better.

To begin:

Using an evolutionary model we would expect to see life on earth going from less complex to more complex as adaptations compound. If we look at the fossil record, this is exactly what we see. Simple invertebrates to fish to reptiles to mammals and so on. And while we do of course see simple organisms coexisting with complex ones ( just look at an earth worm) we never see something like a ichthyosaur in a fossil bed with trilobites. Nowhere. Ever.
From a creation standpoint where the animals were created at around the same time we would expect to see animals at all stages of complexity mixed together. And yet we find these fossil beds with exclusively “simple” organisms.

File: IMG_0831.jpg (63KB, 480x482px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x482px

>>733930870
Lol don't do that

>>733930783
You don't sound very educated.

>>733930879


lol you silly dullard. So you made an assumption about my assumptions.
I've told you you're wrong. I've clarified my meaning.
So what are you still whining about?

>>733930930


Agreed. Fewer and fewer christians deny evolution

>>733928024
is there a porn with the two girls on the right??

>>733931004


Could be. If god existed then there would be no reason why he couldn't create life through evolution

>>733931174
Don't see a problem with evolution. If God made everything, and evolution is a fact - then God made evolution as well.

>>733931034
Nice, you start hard, ok, first of all, I'm not for creationists either, just have an inquiring mind. I do think you believe in laws of nature, law of entropy states everything tends toward disorder, or nothing left to itself gets better off with time, exact opposite of evolutionary theory. Also, we do actually find multiple fossils of different complexities mixed together in different rock layers around the world, Dino and human footprints side by side or worse, fossilized trees through all layers of different ages

>>733931388

Yup. Could be

File: 1494862932689.jpg (64KB, 467x750px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 467x750px

>>733931261
Dont you mean the girls on the left?

>>733931140
I actually said that your intent/assumptions were unimportant
>trying to pretend you meant something else and that it matters even if you did
Instead, I was very specific.
>I took offense to the false assumption of your post.
Notice I didn't say your assumption, but the assumption of your post.

While I'm glad you clarified your meaning, I hope you understand that in needing to you verified my position: that your original post was a strawman.

It's been a pleasure, have a good day~

>>733930421
Fuck me, that's hot.

File: ElfYamada.png (430KB, 735x720px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 735x720px

>>733928024
Niggers are living proof that some species go nowhere.

>>733931526
This moar

"Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality, but yet those who believe in science have yet to prove or provide any evidence that those set of assumptions are true. Why? Because they can't. Until those who believe in science can prove those assumptions are true we must assume said assumption are unprovable and therefore science is bullshit

Here is why the scientific method is bullshit: You can't prove objective reality is real, it is all based upon an assumption" -Anon

>>733931400

>we do actually find multiple fossils of different complexities mixed together in different rock layers

We don't, actually. There are examples of fossils that have been shifted into older layers of rock but those can readily be identified. There is not one example of something like a reptile being found in a fossil bed with something like a trilobite.

> Dino and human footprints side by side

Again, no. You're thinking of the Paluxy Riverbed tracks. A known hoax. Some of the "human"tracks were simply eroded dinosaur tracks and others were actually carved

>fossilized trees through all layers of different ages

These are also shown to be intrusions into an older rock layer either through geological upheaval or in some cases, just the trees pushing through older layers as they grow

File: loelayers02.jpg (233KB, 598x446px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 598x446px

>>733931034
From the book geologic enigmas

>>733931450


lol yeah, your misinterpretation of my meaning proves that it was a straw man.

You've won!
lol run along halfwit

>>733928024
>Evolution is a science theory!
fixed that for you

>>733931920

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Not a problem

>>733932146


Aww someone doesn't realize that a scientific theory is a scientific fact.
That's as close as it gets, champ

>>733931910
Then how do you explain man made objects found in coal mines that date back to millions of years? Not actually thinking of Paluxy riverbed tracks, but even those, you cannot really believe that over 500 human footprints were carved into it. Why did ancient civilizations believe in dinosaurs without having been able to uncover the fossils back then? Assyrians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians and many more. All have some sort of stories about monsters or dragons, all resembling dinosaurs, was it just a mass dilusional effect that went on?

>>733931993
>misinterpretation
I don't think that word means what you think it means. You did say it wrong, so it was interpreted correctly.

>>733930783
OP asking to prove a negative again. Ok, it's time for you to eat your ramens, pornhub and handfucking and some call of duty.

Oh, vodka. Lots and lots of vodka. Maybe you'll forget.

Please don't an hero. At this rate, some one else at the northeast Western central community college and vocational training institute will do it for you.

Ever consider a future as a dental hygienist?

>>733932357


shh shh shh. You've embarrassed yourself enough
Off you go...

>>733932252
Hey guys, lets just put it this way, Science advances through theories, it takes the theory that fits best a description, and goes along with it as fact until a better one is discovered

>>733932333
>without having been able to uncover the fossils back then?
they found plenty of bones and fossils back then, often using them for religious practices.

>>733932458
that was my first post in this thread mr. troll

>>733928024
Evolution is an observable fact, correct. Sadly, people don't live long enough to observe it, so they will remain ignorant or blindly believers. Either way, you lose. How is that good?
Only the ones who have seen it knows its truth. Everybody else are blindly faithful or ignorant.

>>733932465
Bone yes, but surely petrification would've set in after millions of years don't you think? And I myself have been to museums where the dinosaur bones only dated back a couple of thousand years, which perplexed scientists so much that the exibit had to be removed. Speaking of which, how do you guys know the age of fossils if I may ask

>>733932333

>Then how do you explain man made objects found in coal mines that date back to millions of years?

Can you give me some links to those?
>you cannot really believe that over 500 human footprints were carved into it.

Alright, i did say that they were also just eroded dinosaur footprints, but i'm sensing an argument from incredulity here. You don't see how it could have happened, therefor it didn't

>without having been able to uncover the fossils back then?

Um...they would have been able to. Easily. You don't have to dig through rock to find dinosaurs. Often they are exposed after a flood or storm

>>733932543


lol even more impressive that you managed to humiliate yourself so much already then!

>>733932333
Trips!

>>733932949
Comon dude, I'm serious, Almost all ancient civilizations have some form or another of dragons resembling dinosaurs as we know them today, and I'm not mocking what you believe or anything, just asking for some facts

>>733932549
OP, God damn it, seriously, really? Microevoltion is observable, not macro. I find a dead dog in your backyard (hee, your backyard, that makes me laugh), it doesn't mean your mom was a bitch.

You should sue for a tuition refund.

Learn some critical thinking. The SLIDE said so?! Shit

>>733932860
That kind of is the problem when discussing opinions, one believes one thing another believes another. Yes you did say some footprints were eroded, but erosion would've most likely eaten away the toes first, leaving nothing much to identify as human prints, as for links, like I said I don't like anyone sending me links here and I don't send out, but just type a google search, man made items found in coal, or you could look up out of place artefacts also, Klerksdorp spheres, baigong pipes etc... Now just a heads up, most of the websites would be some christian group claiming that it is proof showing evolution is fake, like I said I don't believe those guys either, but further searches do show up some interresting stuff

>>733933178

Well let's talk about some more evidence

A big punch in the eye to creation is the existence of marine mammals.
As we know, fish swim by flexing their spine from side to side. Marine mammals swim by flexing it up and down.
Well so what?
In fact this is very important. Because the side to side motion is a far more efficient mode of aquatic locomotion than is up and down. The fastest known fish is the black marlin which can swim at an absurd 130 km/ph. The fastest known marine mammal is a dolphin which can swim at about 70 km/ph. Point made.
One might ask themselves why an intelligent creator would deliberately design an inferior mode of locomotion for an aquatic animal.
Doesn't make a lot of sense. So let's see what evolution says about that.

Well as you know, fish evolved into reptiles which later evolved into mammals and all marine mammals are descended from terrestrial mammals.
If you look at the way marine mammals swim (flexing the spine up and down) you notice that it is the same way in which land mammals flex their spine when they run.
Which is just what you'd expect from an aquatic mammal that arose from a land mammal. Too many other systems already in place for the selective pressure for a more efficient side to side locomotion.

>>733933681

Well i'm assuming you're no expert on erosion patterns. Neither am I. That's why i go on the testimony of those people who are.

But what you're doing here is trying to present anomalies. How would you explain the fossil record that shows entire phyla absent for millions of years?

The Missing Link

Read through the word a step at a time and work to seek Him.

>>733933731
Ok, let's leave creation out of this, I don't agree with those saying God created evolution, just finding excuses in face of opposition, and their 6000 year old earth doesn't fit well with me either.

Anyway, I believe you're mistaken there, I have actually my old science textbook right here showing fish evolving to marine mammals and then into terrestial mammals, not really important, apart from the fact that actually very few terrestial mamals have spines moving up and down when walking around, most have hips swaying side to side, dogs, cats, cows, my girlfriend (joke), but a side to side motion is actually pretty common in nature, more so than up and down. And if the whole evolutionary process did work as you say, the question that arises is why are there still fish if they evolved into more advanced creatures (again defying the law of entropy), why are there no missing links? If fish evolved into land mamals, at some point during the process, the half fin half leg would have been useless for both swimming and walking, and the creature would die, leaving nothing to be able to evolve... same problem with reptiles into birds

File: 500full.jpg (43KB, 400x350px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x350px

Dang. I was so close to actually getting people to debate here.

>>733934125
I've done my fair share of research, but you're right, I am no expert, and I actually have heard experts from all sides argue this before, creation, evolution, atheist, etc... and I couldn't pick my side and had to do my own research since all sides didn't give me satisfactory answers. Yes I do present anomalies, and have found pretty cool theories to explain those anomalies actually, but problem with evolution, they can't seem to find anomalies (missing links)

>>733929234
Only person in this thread that should feel humiliated is the faggot ending his sentences with an ellipsis.

>>733934458
>old science textbook right here showing fish evolving to marine mammals


Yikes. How old is that textbook? That is categorically incorrect. Fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals.

>very few terrestial mamals have spines moving up and down when walking around

Well that's not true either. But i can see why you would think that. Recall what they look like when they're running.

>why are there still fish if they evolved into more advanced creatures


Aw come on dude. Really?
Because ALL fish didn't evolve into amphibians and so on.
SOME fish did. Other's remained competitive or didn't encounter the selective pressure that cause others to change

> why are there no missing links?

Everywhere. Ever heard of tiktaalik?

>the half fin half leg would have been useless for both swimming and walking

Nope. Check out mudskippers. Their powerful pectoral fins are good for swimming AND hauling themselves around the mudflats

>>733934769


Run along, little boy...

lol

>>733934995
No YOU run along

>>733935097
...

>>733935162
That actually doesn't qualify as you didn't write a sentence at all.

But you're still a god damned hernia in the lives of everyone you meet

>>733934458
man you're so fucking retarded people should just 360 out of 'debating' you

>>733935244

then everything is going according to plan...

>>733935315
Damn right it is, the more we jerk each other off with this shitty tangential conversation the quicker the thread dies.

You're welcome.

>>733935407

sucker, i'm just milking you for bumps...

>>733934891
Mudskippers ok, other fish? And like I said, what happens when half fin half leg? You do find genetic mutations for sure, but just to have offspring with the same mutation, the two before it must've had the exact same mutation for it to be passed along or else the mutation dies out.
This textbook is from 2001, I have older ones too, the problem I have with the evolution theory in each of em is that they are all different, I even have one from 2003 that states evolution happened in seconds not billions of years, and oh yea, remember what Darwin said, the earth was only 80k years old, and he is basically the father of evolution. And yes, there are missing links being discovered, but not for all species alive today...

I would like all the Creationists to stop taking any modern medicine or eat any GMO food from now on. They should not be willing to blindly consume the fruits of a science they deny.

Their life expectancy will drop to ~60 years of age and their population will start to wither.

tl;dr? > Send the creationists to heaven early

To further the slow death of a shitty thread I will start writing poetry of how OP is a fucking retarded pile of human excrement.
>OP
>is dopey
>smells like shiiiiit
>cause he's a faaaaaag

>>733935267
Classic, starting to insult people when you have trouble getting your opinion out, just because you cannot answer some basic questions... well for sure you didn't evolve into something mature

>>733935484
Yeah sure nobody gives a shit. I just want attention and I enjoy manipulating you into looking like even more of a retard. How's the triple dot treating you btw? Don't worry, makes you look good.

>>733928024
I believe in God and evolution. God created the initial creatures and made it so they will survive in different habitats.

>>733928024
Evolution is the tool by which God created all the life on earth... why would I deny it?

Bible doesn't say he poof'd it into existance...

>>733935509
>Mudskippers ok, other fish?


No, an example of a limb that is good for both swimming and walking.
But again, you're making an argument from ignorance. You don't know what happens and you take that as evidence that it could not have happened.

>I even have one from 2003 that states evolution happened in seconds

I can only assume you're misinterpreting something because none of those things are evolution theory. I recommend that you google some of that stuff for clarification

> but not for all species alive today...

....Well so what? We have to find every missing link in order to prove the concept? Of course not.

But you're not convinced by this, that's cool. Let's move on to some more evidence.

Retroviruses are viruses that reproduce by inserting their genetic information into host cells which then replicate.
When these viruses infect reproductive cells, their genetic information is passed on to the progeny of the host. This results in the presence of retroviral dna in our human genetic code. Junk dna from a foreign organism.
The interesting thing is that we’ve been able to map the genome of other animals. For instance, the chimpanzee. When we look at the chimp’s dna we find, to an astonishing degree, the same retroviral genetics in the same places that we find them in human dna.

File: tetrapod_evo.jpg (143KB, 459x610px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 459x610px

>>733935509

>>733935638
>>733935757
Shut the fuck up you inbred fucking animals. Nobody asked for your damn opinion about SHIT. Go fuck yourselves and catch syphillus

>>733928354
Wow OP is a huge douche. Almost like hes on.... summer break

>>733935716
What you are talking about is Micro evolution, which is true, fact, even scriptural, also called survival of the fittest, or adaptation, but it doesn't explain Macro evolution

File: disney-princess-sexy-cosplay-tinkerbell- ariel-jasmine-cinderella-ass-butt-shot-geek_tits-shelf_porn.jpg (445KB, 1200x1500px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1200x1500px

>>733928024
Don't give a shit about christ or evolution but I'd fuck the ever-living shit outta any one of those Tinker Bells! Especially second from left!!!
>have fantasized about Tink for years!!!

>>733935876
Yeah of course not. Small changes adding up over time to make what appears to be one giant change? Never happens

>>733935931
Nice, same here mate. I'd take both of the girls on the left.

File: Metamorphosis.jpg (22KB, 400x243px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x243px

>>733928024
That picture isn't representative of evolution, metamorphosis in the other hand is. Evolution is a whole species changing to better suit their environment via the mechanism of Natural Selection. Metamorphosis is transforming from a young individual into a adult through various stages.

>>733936062


Yup. But this picture attracts more attention

>>733929496
>Show me a dog in a fossil bed with trilobites and evolution is in trouble.
Everywhere in the world we have openings in the ground an animal could fall in, bypassing potentially millions of years of stratified rock in the process. We have to test carefully for new mud in an old crack. Add if we somehow did find a legitimate, recent enough trilobite fossil surviving to the days of dog domestication, I'd question it too.

But carbon and radiometric dating is such a reliable measure now, and there's a lot of glory grabbers who would love to disprove an established theory like this. On Facebook and Twitter, mostly.

Let's drive off that bridge when we get to it.

>>733935803
yes, but the viruses never made a host or it's descendents better off. And, depending on the sequencing you use, DNA similarities differ from creature to creature, sequencing used to prove evolution results in us being different from certain apes by only 2%, others say we are different from ducks by only 3%. Speaking of DNA, how do they extract DNA from fossils or Dinosaur bones since DNA cannot last that long

If you don't understand evolution you're a fucking retard

File: 1761049 - Col_O_Ring Disney_Fairies Joe_Randel Peter_Pan Tinker_Bell edit.jpg (134KB, 765x990px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 765x990px

>>733936031
Wow, a fellow Tink fag? Awesome!

>>733935840
Cool, but how can the earth be millions of years old to allow for the evolution then? Surely you must have studied that! Nature cannot have allowed earth to be over a couple of hundred thousand years old

>>733936332
Hell yeah, so hot.

>>733936272
>but the viruses never made a host or it's descendents better off

True. And totally irrelevant. It's not a question of them being beneficial. It's a matter of their genetic material being present in the same places on chimp genomes as it is on ours.

>, sequencing used to prove evolution results in us being different from certain apes by only 2%

And how is that meant to be an argument against evolution? That speaks to common decent.

I'm sorry, i think i missed the point of your counterargument.
How are these correlating genomes featuring retrovrial dna in the same places not evidence of evolution?

>>733936332

We would all fuck Tink until she burst in half, mate

It is an evolutionary thing, and it explains why there are so few Faerie left now.

>>733936272
where the fuck are you getting your information lol
Its whack af

>>733936533
Beacause depending on the sequencing used, we could have evolved from apes or from ducks, or even certain plants if you use the correct DNA sequencing

>>733936397
>Nature cannot have allowed earth to be over a couple of hundred thousand years old

Ummmmmm.........

File: 1495926623258.jpg (167KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 800x800px

E V O L U T I O N

>>733936747


Uhhh no. You're mistaking the presence of similar genetics for evidence that we evolved from said species.
Geneticists can tell which genes correlate to which genes. It's not just about how much material is the same, it's about where it is and how it is expressed.

So again, what is your alternate explanation for why humans and chimps both exhibit retroiral dna in the same places?

>>733936669
books, tv, internet, conventions I attended for both arguments for and against evolution, I get bored pretty quickly and when I do I study, research, analyse and interperet, use actual science to find answers people are struggling with, the reason I always say that if someone can give me irrefutable scientific proof, I will believe, but so far no one could, which in itself is the very meaning of science, discovering, getting more questions, discovering more and so on

>>733936747
Wow.

I just wanted to troll in this thread for a while, but this is awhole deeper level of stupid.

A commonality in the primate and avian genomes exists. However, the homology is lower and the suggests a far earlier divergence.

You are over-trolling so much that I am getting serious

>>733936885
Work out the math, the distance from earth to the sun, the moon, saltiness of oceans, DNA, Spin of earth, age of fossils etc...

>>733936397
>Nature cannot have allowed earth
I'm not sure how being confined to the family basement suddenly makes you the "Nature" expert for /pol/. Son, brave and stupid ain't never a good combination. But now you upped the ante to crazytown ignorado?

> to be over a couple of hundred thousand years old
Yeah, listen, about this, all you need is good evidence, which means you don't have any, do ya? This is how you earn your irrelevance.

This thread is full of retards
Please go educate yourselves

>>733937264
>>733936747

>>733937070
>irrefutable
Science will not be able to disprove the existence of God. But similarly, you can never prove that the Bible is anything other than a work of fiction.

The fact is, current scientific endeavors which incorporate the principles of natural selection provide a wealth of medicines, foodstuffs and even AI/AR systems which are an essential part of our economy. Stop pretending to be Amish.

>>733937130
Dude if you think I'm doing this to troll... get a life, I just don't think the theory of evolution has enough to stand on for me to believe in it

>>733937416
>Science will not be able to disprove the existence of God.
If theists are never able to prove their gods, there's nothing to disprove, is there?

>>733937519
It should be ringing alarm bells in your head that to others what you're saying sounds that fucking dumb that people think you're trolling

>>733931547

And people like you are living proof that some whites fucked their cousins

>>733937046
love how you're still humoring him

he's either retarded or trolling you, either way you're wasting your breath

>>733937519
you just don't think, period.

seriously man i hope you're trolling, people as dumb as you existing is what keeps me up at nights

>>733937519
Do you believe in the fruits biotechnology and genetics?

If you get cancer, God forbid, will you refuse to partake of a neoantigenic cancer therapy because you reject the science that underlies it?

Also, I found a girlfriend for you >>25292515

>>733937366
Ok, for evidence then lets talk about the Sun: Is it shrinking from burning up fuel or not, if it is, you take the rate it is shrinking every year, back track it and around 50 000 years to 200 000 years back it would be big enough to touch the earth, then again there is counter proof it is not shrinking, but one thing all scientists agree on is that it is losing mass, which means losing gravity, meaning a couple of hundred thousand years ago the mass would be high enough to suck the earth into the sun (mass relation to gravity), so there is one fail for evolution, the moon gets away from earth by a couple of inches per year, meaning in the past it must have been closer, now you will say that science shows that the moon broke off from earth etc... to which I will counterargue that the moon causes oceanic tides, meaning 2mln years ago the moon would have been close enough to earth to cause tides so high it would drown the whole planet twice a day (inverse square law). DNA extracted from fossils, quuick science fact; DNA cannot survive for more than a million years, the oldest DNA ever found on earth was in greenland under the ice (perfect for storing); age between 450k and 800k years. Carbon dating works only for up to 50k years, so dating fossils cannot be done using carbon dating because of C-12 and C-14 ratio in earth's atmosphere. Spin of the earth; earth is slowing down, around 1.5mln years ago the spin would've been too great for earth to support life, and I can go on.
Btw, I don't live with my parents, I am a stock trader and just bought my second house, all paid off

File: Halal.jpg (39KB, 531x471px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 531x471px

>>733928024
I agree with you, OP, but you can't reason with Christians. At least they fall for shitty bait.

If the devil is omnipotent in the material world (as most Christians believe) then all the evidence of evolution could have been placed there to mislead us. There is no way we could tell the difference between reality and deception because, in fact, there wouldn't be any ( I believe in evolution but you said to debate)

>>733938326
Congratulations on your house! How big?

>>733937416
Oh yes, we can prove the bible is not entirely fiction, a lot of it is actually true, but as for the ages mentioned in it I tend to disagree, also it has many contradictions which I cannot get my head around. Yes science gives us everything from Economy, Medicine, biology, physics etc... but if science comes up with a theory it cannot prove definitely (evolution) then that theory is no better than any religion because you have to believe it. No I'm not Amish, I love tech, and invest regularly in high tech companies

>>733928024
it's the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution.
game. set. match.

File: devilBIGGER.gif (32KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1000x1000px

Shhhhh!

>>733937787
I don't care what others think, but if you want to have an argument with me or a debate, you better come loaded because your facts just don't stand on their own

>>733938676
>Hypothesis
You're thinking of hypothesis

Look up scientific theory

>>733938025
see, with your insults again, no maturity, and you say I'm dumb... if that keeps you up at night, then who is the dumb one!?!

>>733938667
It is not the purpose of science to prove things definitively, but to expand and quantify our understanding of reality.

The purpose of religion is to provide solace in a probabilistic world for people that need absolute belief.

>>733938503
first one 274m2, second one 298m2

>>733938893
it's called the theory of evolution for a reason.

File: starcycle.jpg (25KB, 560x287px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 560x287px

>>733938326
Not who you responded to.
The Sun is losing mass sure, but a miniscule amount compared to it's giant size. If you look at the life cycle of a star the size of our Sun, you'll see that Sun is going to expand to a far larger size and become a red giant.

>>733937020
Digi-volve to . . . !

>>733939163
In the scientific community, it hasn't been called "the theory" for many years. That's a throwback to the 50's and 60's. Scientifically, evolution has long been accepted as scientific fact.

>>733939034
Nice!

>>733939026
True, but as to my previous argument you must see there are kinks in the theory of evolution, maybe they'll get fixed over time, then I could maybe believe it, just like religion, there are kinks, some of the things are maybe true, but for both science and religion, I cannot make up my mind on a bunch of maybe's. The reason I don't really care for it all, I focus more on where I'm going, where I come from I don't really care for, but I do capture anomalies, contradictions etc... in both evolution and religion, the reason I asked for proof here, but no one can give it

>>733939163
KEK

Let's start using the term "Theory of Creation"

On one hand we have science which has several measurable, repeatable attributes. Although we can see the mistakes that have been made, we can see that the scientific method uses those mistakes as the basis of self-correction so that kowledge is preserved and iproved over time.

On the other hand, we have religion, which makes you feel good then you are frightened of the boogy man.

File: allah hu akbar.jpg (193KB, 850x964px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 850x964px

>>733931440
>>733931261

>>733928997
their right

File: Doom.jpg (42KB, 680x548px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 680x548px

>>733931440
>>733939549
Kek!

File: limb.jpg (79KB, 1050x535px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1050x535px

>>733939451
I think this is good proof. Why would God make transitionary species?

>>733939451
What about fossils like Archaeopteryx?
>I love this fossil

3rd one in is sexy as fuck and that's the only reason I clicked

File: Archaeopteryx.jpg (52KB, 601x401px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 601x401px

>>733939873

File: Brother.jpg (8KB, 275x210px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 275x210px

>>733939897
Don't you mean the first?

>>733939777
Did not say God made it, and secondly just because there are creatures that have similar bone structures doesn't mean they evolved from one another.

>>733940003
What other explanation could there be?

>>733939873
yep, and went to the places they discoverd it, and saw the fossils in London museum of natural history

>>733940123
Isn't Archaeopteryx proof of evolution? It's between a bird and a dinosaur.

>>733928024
I'd bang C...

>>733940061
Personally, that is one thing I don't give my opinion on, because then I get flack from both evolutionists and creationists. For me the biggest problem with evolution is the time it takes to take place, millions and billions of years, like I said in one of my previous arguments, earth could not exist for that long to be able to get life from evolution, and without the time, you cannot have evolution, problem with religious nuts; they have too many excuses, arguments, and their time periods don't match with earth's age either

>>733940456
A would be fun to cuddle naked with, but B would be the best fuck far and away.

>>733940541
Then what's you're opinion?

>>733940332
I've seen 13 different Archaeopteryx fossils, they are all around 12 or 13 inches in diameter, on 4 or 5 you can see resemblence of claws, and on 3 you can see teeth. That is about it. Now that for me is not proof because some birds do have claws and some do have teeth while others don't. Not one had evidence of scales, but all had feathers, sorry to say, it just looked like an extict species of bird...

>>733940914
No birds have permanent teeth (sometimes they have teeth in the egg or very young) and all birds have nails or claws. Archaeopteryx has both.

>>733940688
for evidence then lets talk about the Sun: Is it shrinking from burning up fuel or not, if it is, you take the rate it is shrinking every year, back track it and around 50 000 years to 200 000 years back it would be big enough to touch the earth, then again there is counter proof it is not shrinking, but one thing all scientists agree on is that it is losing mass, which means losing gravity, meaning a couple of hundred thousand years ago the mass would be high enough to suck the earth into the sun (mass relation to gravity), so there is one fail for evolution, the moon gets away from earth by a couple of inches per year, meaning in the past it must have been closer, now you will say that science shows that the moon broke off from earth etc... to which I will counterargue that the moon causes oceanic tides, meaning 2mln years ago the moon would have been close enough to earth to cause tides so high it would drown the whole planet twice a day (inverse square law). DNA extracted from fossils, quuick science fact; DNA cannot survive for more than a million years, the oldest DNA ever found on earth was in greenland under the ice (perfect for storing); age between 450k and 800k years. Carbon dating works only for up to 50k years, so dating fossils cannot be done using carbon dating because of C-12 and C-14 ratio in earth's atmosphere. Spin of the earth; earth is slowing down, around 1.5mln years ago the spin would've been too great for earth to support life, and I can go on.
So there, I don't believe evolution can explain those facts away.

>>733941327
Ok but why are some animals related morphologically if not for evolution?

>>733940688
For the creationist side, if you take the bible and work out the ages they state in there it amounts up to around 6147 years, give or take a few, waaayyyyyy too short I think. We have proof that the earth is at least 50k years old, irrefutable proof, so that already blows the creationists away, secondly I don't like people always getting excuses for things they can't explain. They believed the earth was flat at some point too. And every time a creationist can't explain then it is God, but as soon as science explains it, then they say it wasn't God, but the next thing is. So yea, neither really rock my boat

>>733941160
Some geese (Greylag, Domestic) have teeth in adulthood too. And yes, Archaeopteryx has both, but like I said, could be just an extinct bird, like many extinct species

my gf doesnt belive in evolution. she keeps saying somehow god made us. and no, she doesnt belive we come from monkeys.

how can i get as many blowjobs as i want?
also can someone do my tesis for my phd (mostly easy shit)

>>733941459
Good question; now again we get into Micro evolution or survival of the fittest, which I totally agree with, not macro evolution. To sum it up, I would put it down to the enviroment, practicality of survival, natural selection

>>733941990
Get a monkey to do it for you (bj and thesis) after all they are your ancestors

>>733941459
>>733940688
>>733941160
Hey guys, fun chatting but I gotta go, 4am here, still need to study. For more on why I don't believe in evolution, a short video I posted on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ogfTHL3do

>>733928024
Yeah uh stfu OP. God damn, you fucking globalists are fucking around with every thing. STFU. We know what you are doing, give it up. I've set 6 multi-megaton nukes all over upper Midwestern USA. Buh-bye cunt.

>>733941990
Have fun raising a kid you don't hate.

>>733941993
There's not really a difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. It's just an arbitrary distinction you people made up so you can pretend not to be ignorant of reality when you argue against evolution.

"No this doesn't happen."

"Ok well it happens, but only in this specific way we just made up"


Please. Pseudo intellectualism is the defining characteristic of apologists like you.

>>733941459
Your understanding of science is extremely poor

>>733942856
oh yes dude, huge difference between the 2. Pseudo Intellectualism??? At least I do research where you just sit on your ass and believe anything you're told... I ain't an apologist, I'm not a believer in a deity either. There is a bigger universe out there than just Creation or evolution. If you're so closed minded that you sum it up to only 2 beliefs, then you're a pretty shallow guy with not much brain power. So if you couldn't come up with a single proof this whole evening, you're really not much of a thinker, just a follower.

>>733941327
That was just a bunch of babble peppered with some sciency sounding stuff. I hope no one reading what you write is stupid enough to be fooled by it. First off, you seem to misunderstand the difference between mass and volume, you also misunderstand the way gravitation and orbits work.

Also, what happened with our moon is that another planet crashed into earth and part of the remains formed the moon, it used to be really close and has been drifting away every since. You are also misunderstanding how tides work and how tidal hotspots are distributed around the world and why, in addition to completely ignoring the fact that the earth used to have significantly more ice on its surface.

As far as carbon dating goes. It's not the only thing people use to date living things. I would absolutely love to know how you'd argue against geological strata being used to date things.

>>733943734
also there are other kinds of radiometric dating besides C-14

>>733943449
>If you're so closed minded

Why the hell does it always come down to closed mindedness? I'm perfectly willing to consider what people tell me as long as they have real evidence backing it up and their reasons for thinking it's wrong aren't just blatant misunderstandings of the science behind it.

This isn't stargate and you're not daniel jackson. You didn't figure out some secret that the rest of the world is denying because they're arrogant, you're just some kid that misunderstood the information he was given and now thinks he's on to something.

>research

I'm sure you're just going to throw "appeal to authority" at me but when the consensus disagrees with you, are you absolutely sure you did your research correctly? Like really sure? You're sure you're not just missing something?

>>733943734
No dude, You misunderstand it... I did the calcs over and over again, you just sit there and believe, no diligence, no working for yourself trying to solve the problems. Orbit... yea right, that would just prove me right, you think mass and gravitational pull arn't related, go back to school man. Geo Strata dating, cannot be done without some form of radiometric dating, which relies on different assumptions that make it inacurate. And like I said, those are just a few examples, there are many more to disprove it. But like any normal person, you would just sit around, not doing your own research and relying on the word of others with no proof

>>733943449
>Step 1: Find something well studied with an established theory explaining its function
>Step 2: Deny that all information and discoveries involved with said something are valid and give no reason other than declarative statements.
>Step 3: Wait for the flood of counter-arguments
>Step 4: Ignore all of their counter arguments and call them closed minded and act like they presented no evidence, when the whole argument you're making is against the evidence.

It's like playing checkers with an ape.

>>733944485
>you think mass and gravitational pull arn't related, go back to school man

I didn't even come close to saying that, so this just proves how absolutely dogshit your reading comprehension is. You said the sun was losing mass and therefor shrinking, and that according to your asinine calculations the sun should have been big enough to engulf the earth. That's not how it works.

The worst part is that everyone fucking knows that's now how it works. How stupid can you possibly be to even say that and then argue against me calling you out on it?

Pretty much all your doing is coming up with bigfoot level credibility arguments and then reducing every argument against you to this big sheeple anti-info conspiracy thing you have going on.

Your calculations are irrelevant and your methodology is bad.

File: download (9).jpg (11KB, 262x192px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 262x192px

spiderman thread

>>733944088
Well, do the math yourself, and no I ain't the one that stumbled on to something that no one else know about, there are many who did the same research I did, some creationists, some evolutionists, came up with the same answers I did, but then the evolutionists do exactly what the creationists do, walk away from an argument they can't explain. I even asked Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson about it, and of course no reply, just blocking my emails, or replying they don't have time, they just know because of others that done the research.
Repeal of authority, no dude, it is just funny how people can be manipulated into believing something they didn't work on themselves, just like studies done on apes in a lab, or how religious people think, same as you are doing, funny you calling me an ape, when you're the one believing you descended from apes, and you're the one not able to research for yourself

File: rveno-08.jpg (46KB, 500x445px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x445px

>>733945160
spiderman is cool but red venom is the best

>>733945074
hahaha, you're the one that didn't read correctly dude, try again
Is it shrinking from burning up fuel or not, if it is, you take the rate it is shrinking every year, back track it and around 50 000 years to 200 000 years back it would be big enough to touch the earth, then again there is counter proof it is not shrinking, but one thing all scientists agree on is that it is losing mass, which means losing gravity, meaning a couple of hundred thousand years ago the mass would be high enough to suck the earth into the sun (mass relation to gravity)

>>733928024
Not a Christian or religious. Evolution is full of shit. Rather than being a blind fag you should run through the evidence given in the THEORY and stop regurgitating the fake shit you were force fed

>>733945291
>walk away from an argument they can't explain.

If someone asked you which pool filter you should use when you change your oil, you might walk away too. That's the level you're on with this. You just don't understand and you're asking them stupid questions. Creationists can't answer questions because they consider logic to be a trap and they don't want to say something that will make them look incorrect. If an "evolutionist" isn't answering your question then you either asked one that simply doesn't know the answer (because most people aren't evolutionary biologists) or you asked such an asinine question that it can't be answered without them having to explain everything wrong with it.

No one's going to answer your sun engulfing the earth point because it's absurd and they shouldn't have to. You should already know better before you even have these arguments. Do you understand?

Bill Nye and Niel Tyson didn't reply to you because they're celebrities. Not that hard to figure out. Also, neither of them are evolutionary biologists or geologists. Both pretty smart dudes, but you're both asking the wrong people, and asking the two people least likely to reply.


>it is just funny how people can be manipulated into believing something they didn't work on themselves

The assumption that other people are wrong because they are being manipulated is a form of logical fallacy, congratulations. I really wish people didn't have to be told this.

>>733945503
Yeah, bad math, bad calculations. You went as far as to google creationist arguments against evolution and you didn't take the one extra step to debunk them yourself. Sad. You are a christian apologist in disguise trying to make your arguments seem secular and it's not working. Go back to answersingenesis you're not fooling anyone here.

File: redvendom-cletus-kasady.jpg (144KB, 350x473px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 350x473px

thread needs more red venom

>>733946022
Classic, now on the defensive! Dude, just stop, you have no idea what you're talking about.
You get angry because I find flaws in a theory, and those (like you) that believe the theory cannot try to take into account a different opinion, strung up. Then you get mad because I put a problem in front of you that you can't resolve instead of taking time to try and resolve it. Through your anger and seeing your failure, you become defensive (which is classic for creationists as well). Then thinking everyone that doesn't believe like you is lower than you, lacks maturity dude. Like I said in the very first conversation here, be open minded, consider other's opinions and try to present facts, neither of which you did. Not once did I take a side in either evolution or creation, just pointed out the flaws and now you can't handle it

>>733946419
No, I googled creationist arguments to turn them against creationists, and evolutionists arguments to turn them against evolutionists. But you being on the defensive by barking out and not having a rational argument, considering unbiased opinions, lame man, really lame

>>733946823
Shitpost of the day

>you're just disagreeding with me because you can't handle the truth and you're immature

Nice, more pseudo intellectual babble.

You are a total daniel jackson. You think you're on to something and the world is against you because they just can't handle it. You don't seem to wad to acknowledge that your arguments don't have as much merit as you think they do. I TRIED to point out why and you just come back at me with more "it's just that no one wants to listen" conspiracy shit. You haven't gotten it through your head yet that people think you're wrong because you misunderstand what you're talking about. You've already demonstrated this with your flawed cosmology and your lack of reading comprehension.

The only reason I'm even still arguing with you is because I genuinely think there is still a chance for you. But the more you argue, if the shit you say can even be considered arguments, the worse you get. You're literally at the point now where you have no more arguments and you're just saying "well i'm right because of bad math and you're not listening to me because you think you're better than I am"

SIGH.

>>733947010
even your rhetoric is bad, jesus

>>733945503
You do know that it is a huge gravtity well and most of its spent fuel will stay within the gravity well itself? Hence, the gravity stays the same.

If I take a pound of hydrogen and turn it into a pound of helium, its still a pound and exerts the same gravity as seen from ~93M miles away.

And as to the actual amount of mass lost to CME and e=mc^2, it's only 9.3x10^(-14) solar masses per year. That means that in about a billion years, the sun will only mass 99.99% of its current weight. Conversely, a few billion years ago, the sun may have massed 1.05% of its current weight.

Not a real argument anymore, is it?

>>733947415
Still a chance for me hahahahaha, if only you knew. All I did was point out your flaws, but you're stuck in a belief system and don't wanna get out of it, your comfort zone. Bad math? like i said prove me wrong, but you can't and because of your incapacity, you're the one being on the defensive and getting angry. I don't really care where we came from, I tend to look more into where we're going, but I also tend to point out flaws in people's opinions and beliefs. And most people, the general mass cannot accept it when they're wrong but don't want to do their own research to prove their point. You're like a guy saying that a Mustang is the best car in the world without having ever driven one, you just believe what you hear. You cannot practice what you preach and then get angry when I say you're wrong. You say I think I'm better than you, you're right, and for a last fact; I know I'm better than you. But go on, stay in your comfort zone, whatever rocks your boat man

>>733948457
>1.05%
Top LEK

I meant +100.05%

(See, a scientist corrects his errors)

>>733948457
>if only you knew
Yeah, I don't sniff glue so I can never understand your illuminati truths

Anyway, that was my first post in this thread and I just did not like the "sun is gonna eat the earth" bullshit.

Carry on, and remember to take a nap before you get cranky Junior.

>>733948457
Really? You think turning H into He will result in the same mass and gravity? Ok man; if you say so
Then go back to the same argument, and read further

>>733939777

But there is no smooth transition, Anon.

We can find thousands of fossils of plenty of species, but any "transitions" are very, very drastic. If there were smooth ones, we'd be finding equal amounts of transitional species. We aren't. We are finding lots of very specific groups.

Even science admits this, and can't explain it beyond sudden drastic species wide mutation, which has yet to be proven in nature.

>>733948799
Never said the sun gonna eat the earth, I said it would've in the past if you consider the shrinking rate of today, then I also said even if it didn't shrink the change in mass would've caused the sun's gravity to be too strong for our planet, then I said the rest about even if the sun theory is disproven, there are others, the moon, the earth's spin etc... read the original argument

>>733948907
>But there is no smooth transition
>We can find thousands of fossils of plenty of species
>any "transitions" are very, very drastic
>We are finding lots of very specific groups
[citation needed]

>If there were smooth ones
Sweetie, that's not how evolution works.

>>733948799
o yea, btw, don't believe in illuminati either, or at least not the way most people do, and no, I don't get cranky and it is 6am here, so not going to sleep, that is for young boys like you

I mean you're not wrong. It is a fact. That's why my parents thinks they don't raise me right lol. Science rules

File: 1337205607040.jpg (31KB, 548x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 548x600px

>>733945924


If you'd like to debate the evidence i would be happy to oblige

>>733948834
>You think turning H into He will result in the same mass and gravity?
Uh, yeah.

Except for radiative losses through e-mc^2 conversion and coronal mass ejections, the conversion of H into He (and so on) happens within the gravity well.

The change in mass is 9.3x10(-14) solar masses per year. That's a negative fourtheenth magnitude. Don't babble about 50,000 and 200,000 year timelines.

Have you not read Hans Bethe?

>>733949136
>even if the sun theory is disproven, there are others, the moon, the earth's spin etc... read the original argument

What, is this the old "I may be full of shit that you can disprove, but I can shovel shit faster than you can disprove it!" approach?

In real life, I would demand that you buy me a beer before I went any farther.

>>733937519


I think that might be more an issue of your education and understanding than in the theory itself.

The objections you raise to the evidence show that you do not understand the subject matter very well

>>733949519
What the guy from the manhattan project, the lamb shift thing, and his works in astrophysics?

File: 1322469462674.jpg (5KB, 239x251px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 239x251px

So basically what i'm hearing is that there is one guy itt who, based on his limited understanding of the evidence has decided that he evidence for evolution isn't good enough.

>>733949801

A common flaw in may sects of protestantism is the belief that prosperity equates with Grace and moral rectitude. That is, rich and entitles people think they are right about stuff they don't know shit about.

A carpenter knows a lot about nails. A scientist knows a lot about the quantitative universe. A stock broker knows how to play golf.

No evidence of transitional fossils, 0. End of argument. It is just a theory, as theoretical as God

>>733949982
Or there's a troll and this thread has lasted pretty long, all things considered.

>>733949689
>the Sun: Is it shrinking from burning up fuel or not, if it is, you take the rate it is shrinking every year, back track it and around 50 000 years to 200 000 years back it would be big enough to touch the earth, then again there is counter proof it is not shrinking, but one thing all scientists agree on is that it is losing mass, which means losing gravity, meaning a couple of hundred thousand years ago the mass would be high enough to suck the earth into the sun (mass relation to gravity), so there is one fail for evolution, the moon gets away from earth by a couple of inches per year, meaning in the past it must have been closer, now you will say that science shows that the moon broke off from earth etc... to which I will counterargue that the moon causes oceanic tides, meaning 2mln years ago the moon would have been close enough to earth to cause tides so high it would drown the whole planet twice a day (inverse square law). DNA extracted from fossils, quuick science fact; DNA cannot survive for more than a million years, the oldest DNA ever found on earth was in greenland under the ice (perfect for storing); age between 450k and 800k years. Carbon dating works only for up to 50k years, so dating fossils cannot be done using carbon dating because of C-12 and C-14 ratio in earth's atmosphere. Spin of the earth; earth is slowing down, around 1.5mln years ago the spin would've been too great for earth to support life, and I can go on.
>Btw, I don't live with my parents, I am a stock trader and just bought my second house, all paid off
There is the original argument. Not trying to shove shit your way, just posting some research i've done in my spare time. Btw, not really into beer, whiskey, cognac more my thing

>god that made the universe
>god not bound by time as we know it
>people can not into that last bit

ok. so we can see planets that are X light years away meaning the universe is at LEAST X years old.

Who is to say though that a god who is capable of creating the universe is not also capable of creating the planet that is X light years away from us with us being able to see it already?

In effect creating a universe that is X years old.

>>733930022
>>733929660
>>733929414

>I just think there's more leeway in the word "yom" ("day") than one 24-hour period.

To god 1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years.

>>733945378
Leave it to a dumb summer fag to mistake Carnage for Venom

>>733949801
Maybe, wasn't in school too long, graduated before my 16th bday then military life for me, after that, finance, accounting, economics... the rest is just more of when I hear contradictions I study them, as an analyst I try to find flaws and probabilities, and work toward the most likely solution

>>733950029
hahaha, I don't play golf

>>733940061

nature kinda figured that bone structure worked.

>>733950294
>finance
>accounting
>economics

>evolution
alright alright alright alright alright alright alright alright now ladies

>>733950146
>To god 1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years.


You understand that peter is not referring to the days of creation right?
The context of that passage makes it clear that he is talking about the passage of time not affecting god's promises .

Not to mention he says on day is as a thousand years, not that it is a thousand years to god. AND we know that god is able to distinguish for men the difference between a day and years because he uses both words in genesis.

AND even if a day was literally a thousand years, it would still be way off the time line that we know through science

>>733950294


That's fine. But i'm telling you that you don't understand the subject enough to be finding flaws.

Like when i gave the evidence of retroviral dna, all you had to say about it was something about sharing dna with many organisms. That particular criticism was explained for you but i didn't notice you addressing that fact.

Do you understand how ignorance could be an obstacle when you're trying to find flaws in a theory?

What would you say about human chromosome 2?
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the other great apes to which we are related have 24 pairs of chromosomes. On the face of it, this presents a problem for the theory of evolution and common decent. Why don’t the apes with whom we ostensibly share an ancestor have the same number of chromosomes as humans? According to evolution, all the great apes evolved from a common ancestor. Since an organism could not survive the complete deletion of a chromosome pair, evolution predicts that this missing pair must be extant somewhere in the gene code. If it’s not then evolution is dead in the water.
But it is and we find it at human chromosome number 2. There we find the missing chromosome pair sandwiched between two other chromosomes with telomeres (the caps usually found on the outside of a chromosome) in the middle. A fused pair of chromosomes. So that missing chromosome pair wasn’t missing, it had just been fused with another pair of ape chromosomes.

>>733946569
Wrong again new fag, that's Toxin!

>>733950960
True, and I hear what you say, and I don't say I know everything, I just pointed out the places wwhere I did find flaws, which is enough for me not to want to accept evolution as the origin of life. I wanted to go into this chromosome thing earlier but thought it best not to because I don't understand it well enough, since chromosome numbers cannot accurately show evolution and is quite contrary to evolutionary theory.

>>733950088
>the Sun: Is it shrinking from burning up fuel or not, if it is, you take the rate it is shrinking every year, back track it and around 50 000 years to 200 000 years back it would be big enough to touch the earth, then again there is counter proof it is not shrinking, but one thing all scientists agree on is that it is losing mass, which means losing gravity, meaning a couple of hundred thousand years ago the mass would be high enough to suck the earth into the sun (mass relation to gravity), so there is one fail for evolution,
I am satisfied that I have shown that this is a bs argument. Your math concerns are 9 orders of magnitude away from sanity on this one.

>the moon gets away from earth by a couple of inches per year, meaning in the past it must have been closer, now you will say that science shows that the moon broke off from earth etc... to which I will counterargue that the moon causes oceanic tides, meaning 2mln years ago the moon would have been close enough to earth to cause tides so high it would drown the whole planet twice a day (inverse square law).
Wrong twice here, child:
#1) the difference over 200,000 years would be 47 miles, resulting in a gravitational change of 0.02%. No ocean sucking for you.
#2) Also, gravity does not work as an inverse square.

Shall I keep going?

>>733951656
>200,000
I meant 2,000,000 of course

(Science corrects itself. Religion does not and can not)

File: 1469431266177.jpg (126KB, 960x730px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 960x730px

>>733928024
god made the universe in 7 days with people
prove me wrong dumb ass. just another idiot falling for the satanist lies.

Its funny that "scientists" that believe in evolution argue against God with "what evidence is there of God", and yet most people who argue against evolution don't just ask the same. Well, what evidence is there of evolution? Do you actually know of any?

>>733951604

Well then you should be able to accept when the flaws you found are shown not to be flaws at all.

So far we you have no alternative explanation for the fossil record. Although you did supply a couple objectively false anomalies.
You have no alternative explanation for why retroviruses appear in the same places for both humans and apes.

So really the flaws you're finding are not flaws. They're just gaps in your knowledge. A quality that keeps rearing its head in your repeated arguments from ignorance/incredulity
>since chromosome numbers cannot accurately show evolution and is quite contrary to evolutionary theory.

I'm sorry, but i have no idea what you're trying to say here or how it might be refutation of the human chromosome 2 evidence. Perhaps clarify

>>733928024
The deniers are a stark minority, the media and internet just want you to think their numbers are greater than they are. Kind of like current trump supporters.

>>733951656
Oh yes, Light, Gravity, Magnetism... all follow inverse square law, sorry for you mate, secondly, why the fuck do people continue assuming I'm religious? I am not and am not taking part in the creationist side of things, I disagree with them too

File: 18E14212-D8B6-4A61-9E69-0A66DEA5C930-377-00000127F295A805.jpg (31KB, 500x240px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x240px

Proof of global warming evolution

>>733929825
To be fair, in your original post, you did state Christians, as a whole. It may have been implied you specifically meant Christians who do not believe in any form of biological evolution, but if that is the case then you should have specifically stated it. Furthermore, if you call a debate against a group, you should first learn proper debate etiquette and procedure. Part of this is that you should refrain from making subjective statements or comments meant as an aside while debating, and should focus on facts above your own personal beliefs. Remember, part of a debate is to learn more information and grow, and to inform and educate your opponent, not specifically to win by any means and be rude. Furthermore, since you initiated the debate you should first state your evidences and sources to back them up. I understand that sourcing can be a tricky subject when dealing with any type of religious debate, which is why it falls on your shoulders even more so to state your facts and evidences as thoroughly and as clearly as possible.

Carry on

How did life begin on earth?

>>733951949
Fossil record? I told you plenty, and no, not gaps of my knowledge, the retroviruses I didn't argue because I never heard of that study, DNA sequencing I did, just because something appears in both humans and apes doesn't mean it is because of evolution, as for chromosomes, just wikipedia it, it goes against evolutionary theory. And like I said earlier, evolution needs time, which the earth did not have

>>733928024
>debate me
Is that like come at me bro for faggots

>>733951864
>equating "what evidence is there of God" to "what evidence is there of evolution
Oh shit, nigger. You done it.
>Well, what evidence is there of evolution
Disease, for starters. The story of bananas is an interesting one.

The reason some people ask for evidence of "God" is due to the fact that "God", when explained away, turns into a kind of amorphous concept that can only be proven or verified by "faith". Versus someone taking a rock and placing it in your hands, or someone catching TB.

>>733928024
if you wanna believe you evolved from pond scum more power to ya

>>733952424
>not gaps of my knowledge
>I didn't argue because I never heard of that study

>just because something appears in both humans and apes doesn't mean it is because of evolution
>just wikipedia it

>evolution needs time
>which the earth did not have
*~38.8 million years ago
*~3.2 billion years ago
*~4.3 billion years ago

Stop this bait.

No transitional fossils. No hard evidence of evolution, anywhere, ever. You guys don't have to debate the gravitational pull of the moon and the distance of the sun, the exact conditions for life to exist, the immeasurable odds of singular cells forming into complex life, DNA code writing itself in nature, etc etc. There is no tangent to argue. Evolutionists claim their theory, and it is on them to prove it. So far, they have not, and are nowhere near it. They have absolutely 0 evidence of evolution occurring in nature today or in the past, and not a single fossil that says it. There should be millions of transitional fossils just ripe for the picking. Not a single one. Evolution is just as good of a theory as God, maybe not quite as cool though. Just because you want to believe you will some day evolve into something other than a fag does not make it true b/tards

>>733952424
>I told you plenty


Uh no. You made no attempt to offer an alternative explanation for why the fossil record shows what evolution predicts. All you did was offer up a known hoax with a side of anomaly hunting.

> I didn't argue because I never heard of that study,

What do you need to know of the study? If you don't believe the information is true then ignore it. If you have no reason to believe it's false then address it.

>just because something appears in both humans and apes doesn't mean it is because of evolution

Ok. So what's your alternative explanation?
You say you're not convinced by the evidence and yet you have no alternative, just a rejection

> as for chromosomes, just wikipedia it, it goes against evolutionary theory


Yeah...you're going to need to explain that.
How are chromosome against evolution?
And did you have any specific rebuttal to the human chromosome 2 evidence?