Religion involves doublethink and is orwellian.

>>1505925
*tips fedora*

>>1505936
Religion is Orwellian because it's taught from birth that it's better to believe than have skepticism. Any religious person who's honest with themselves will tell you belief in god is not rational. It's simultaneously having two contradictory realities and accepting one because it suites the doctrines which you're supposed to.

>>1505999
le epin skeptic man

Skepticism is a veritable cargo cult at this point

>>1506005
Evolution is based off of evidence that we have obtained. If you're in favor of covering up facts which have been discovered because they don't suit your religion, that is also orwellian.

>>1506038
You don't need to bait so hard

>>1506038
Come on Anon. Post it

>>1506029
There is no such thing as evidence. The probability is just 99.999...%.

File: 1468102071517.jpg (39KB, 435x269px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 435x269px

>>1506038
>I have overwhelming evidence to completely destroy an entire major field of biology
>Let's keep it to blogs and YouTube videos instead of presenting it to the scientific consensus itself, that will teach them

>>1506074
>microevolution

>>1506074
Again, you're keeping it to yourself on your own websites. Why don't you DIRECTLY present it to the scientific community? Why aren't publishing papers on it? You have the evidence, use it.

Besides, 2 seconds on Google prove that quote is completely out of context.

>>1506038
Mutations happen.
Not all mutations have an effect on organism fitness.
Because of this and statistics the rate of mutation is roughly constant in cases where the sequence isn't kept intact by strong selective pressure and the effect is refered to as the "molecular clock".
Anyone can use BLAST (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) to compare gene sequences catalogued in that database and can then use MEGA (http://www.megasoftware.net/) to construct a phylogenetic tree using that data, provided they know what they are doing.

Knowing what they are doing indicates comparing the right gene sequences and not mixing up homologous and orthologous gene sequences like an idiot.
If done right the resulting phylogenetic tree would confirm evolution because of genetic distance resulting from different points of divergence of the various populations that the genetic samples are taken from.

So if A, B and C exist and C is more distant from A and B than A and B are from eachother then there was a population split between a common ancestor of A and B (D) and C.

You can't really determine whether A or B was closer to the common ancestor D though since you only compare A and B.

>>1506100
Define a kind.
Explain how a hard barrier exists.

agreed. an omnipresent inexplicable being who is always watching? Sounds Orwellian to me.