Really fires your thinking, pole

Really fires your thinking, pole

Other urls found in this thread:

livescience.com/1083-oxygen-giant-bugs.html
minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/na/amber.html
youtube.com/watch?v=jqh7rRz1xpE
youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw
livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

me in the middle

On fossil record.

In Africa

What are we missing?

Australia, Africa, Polynesia, India, Turkey, and Estonia

That's where they are

We didn't evolve from Chimpanzees, Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
Chimps just look more like that ancestor.

>took billions of years to get from apes to australopithecus

>turned almost overnight (100k years) into Erectus

Darwinism is legit as fuck my dudes

>Apes
>Billions of years

Do you believe everything the liberal media tells you?

Do you believe everything the bible tells you?

You probably think the earth is 6000 years old, don't you?

We didn't evolve from chimps. Humans and chimps branched off from a common ancestor

believing the earth is 6000 years old isn't as ridiculous as the universe magically appearing out of nowhere and what you see today on earth came out of random chance

because they interbred with us.

>believing the earth is 6000 years old isn't as ridiculous as the universe magically appearing out of nowhere and what you see today on earth came out of random chance

Obvious bait, but that's literally what the Bible says.

1/10 for getting me to respond.

Believing the Earth is 6000 years old is very ridiculous since we have proof it isn't. Or are you going to deny science?
If you deny the scientific evidence that the Earth is billions of years old then do accept it if transsexuals deny science too?

This is just wrong.

Here is the basic timeline:

>Australopithecus Afarensis - 3.9 - 2.8 million years ago
>Early Homo (Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis) ~ 2.8 - 2 million years ago
>Homo Erectus ~ 2 million years ago - 300 thousand years ago
>Homo Heidelbergensis ~ 900 thousand years ago to 250 thousand years ago
>Neanderthal ~ 250 thousand years ago to 40 thousand years ago
>Homo sapiens ~ 200 thousand years ago to today.

the dates detail the spread where each species appears in the fossil record, confirmed with direct dating methods as well is contextual dating via geologcal layers, paleomagnetism, index fossils, etc.

I had a nice long talk with a Christian friend of mine about this 6000-year thing. He has a pretty convincing argument (though I can't equal here myself) that time - or at least the recording of it - was different than what we think it was back then. It would explain stories of people living hundreds of years and shit.

I don't know but I couldn't bait him.

How does the blue pill taste?

>universe appearing out of nowhere
There could still be a god or diety that created the universe, evolution doesn't speculate on that.

>what you see today on earth came out of random chance
That is the opposite of natural selection

They all died.

>There are millions of these
>pointing to a long-extinct pre-hominid

Creationists really are a dimwitted bunch, aren't they?

kek fossil recond, there are no missing links. there are ape bones and human bones. we have yet to find an intermediary. for the closest answer you will find see

God I hate this image. It's so deliberately misleading in how it shows humans evolving from Chimpanzees. Humans and Chimpanzees evolved separately from a common ancestor.

In truth of the matter, creationists have it wrong on how god created us and they just don't to admit it. They are so arrogant that they disregard the hard work of archeologists, biologists and people who have studied the fossil record in depth all around the world based on a literal interpretation of the bible that lacks the true moral insight into our relationship with god.

It is very true to state that Jesus created a church, not a book.

>Blue pilled pretending to be red pilled

Fuck off Jew shit.

you realize that lucy was an ape(feet, hip,femur all indicative of an knuckle walking/tree dwelling ape), and the rest are modern day humans..
this isn't even in contention , these are scientific facts.

> Triggered

>It would explain stories of people living hundreds of years and shit.

so would the entire thing being fiction

Jesus fuck. Kys

Funny how you refer to science as if it is the end all argument. Unopposable. Unassailable. An all encompassing belief system that explains all, something to form your world perspective around. Everything that has, is, and will be. Hmmm, replacing religion mustn't be all that hard.

Science is an argument that ends the 6000 year old earth meme, thats for sure.

next you say we didn't come from the sea

a logical and scientific explanation to the extended life span, as well as the giants would be that of a higher atmospheric pressure and a higher oxygen content in the air.

livescience.com/1083-oxygen-giant-bugs.html

Giant insects might crawl on Earth or fly above it if there was just more oxygen in the air, scientists report.

minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/na/amber.html

67 million years ago, contained nearly 35 percent oxygen compared to present levels of 21 percent. Results are based upon more than 300 analyses by USGS scientists of Cretaceous, Tertiary, and recent-age amber from 16 world sites.

the big bang theory was created by the catholic church.

>Evolution
>Direct linear progression
That's not how it works you little shit

Its not about chimps you fucking retard. Its asking where all of the proto human species are which is also retarded because theyre in the ground dead

theyre condensing it down, why are you so upset?

I dont care about the big bang theory. What is not disputable is the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old

this is my theory

scientist know it but don't want to say it

people truly believe that the first one is a chimpanzee and that evolution took place between 0 a.C and 500 a.C, why even try arguing

All of the other monkeys had an everstone they stole

That's not convincing at all you should be ashamed. One question: evidence? You can spew all the hypotheses you want but without the ability to falsify a claim you're just being a stupid nigger

the fact is that no one knows how old the universe or the earth is, there are no reliable methods of dating geologically. naturalism skews reality to conform with their belief system

>that webm

what the fuck man

Our estimation is the best we have. End if. The Bible makes a claim without evidence. Science, geology and biology at least attempt to use observation and experimentation. You either agree with an educated estimation or you say you don't know. Biblical literalists are developmentally disabled.

i hate anime but this show is a fucking blast

youtube.com/watch?v=jqh7rRz1xpE

You are trying to bend science to fit your agenda.

In science you look at what you see, observe, study and collect information than postulate a theory.

What creations do is interpret the bible literally and than look for anything that affirms their view on the world while rejecting everything else.

This.
Really, the evidence SUGGESTS that the Universe is x years old, but our measurements could be wrong or based on false assumptions. However, that doesn't mean that an hypothesis that it's 6000 years old is even worth entertaining. The difference between these two conclusions is that one started with the evidence and the other started with the conclusion.

youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw
I'm of the opinion that this is all these threads need.

the bible is a belief system, based on their belief. science should use observation, nothing to do with evolution is based in observation . natural selection is observable , well documented, it's one of man kinds oldest practices , animal husbandry. there are no know examples of a species changing to a completely different species. considering it takes hundreds of thousands of years , or thousands of generations, as we just use years because of human gestation period (9 months almost a year) as a basic measuring point. when we look at organisms that have gestation periods or replication periods of days or minutes (virus or bacteria) we have NEVER observed evolution.

wew lad

...

Woah you little cunt drop, calm your titties.

Give me one convincing argument about where the very first life started on earth. Use proof to back up your argument.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

where do you see evolution? in fossils? or in 'transitional' fossils, that is inference , in 1 million years if they dug up the elephant mans skeleton would that somehow prove that the elephant man was a missing link? you can't observe what happened millions of years ago, you can make an educated guess. the bible says 1. god made man in his image. 2. animals can reproduce their kind (natural selection, horses make horses , dogs make dogs)

can you provide any observable evidence of evolution , no you can't . you can show e. coli that adapts to various cultures, you can show big dogs and little dogs, thats it.

And by the way, I HATE when liberals co-opt science and treat it as fact. They are just setting themselves up that way when a new theory is created. For instance Climate science is a formative field and to be frank, the world's fucked from a ecological standpoint. We are better off focusing on trying to save ourselves from the coming disasters, whatever they may be, instead of trying to preserve the environment.

>retards actually believe every single tidbit of info 'scientists' claim
>"THE EARTH IS 6.37837479832 YEARS OLD, GOY"
>"DINOSAURS ALL DIED MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, GOY"

meanwhile: dinosaur soft tissue had been found

where is your objectivity and facts now, atheist faggots?

I have a better question.

If you never saw god create us, than how can you be so certain he did create us in his image?

Even than there is nothing incompatible with Christianity and evolution. The method which god created us simply is not that of which the bible interprets it as.

Evolution is observable fact.

>scientist know it but don't want to say it

One scientist did.

He's not a scientist anymore.

Why does deep time bother you?

Replace it with London

The only thing that the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue has brought about is a re-evaluation of how we understand fossilization takes place.

It's an incredible discovery, but its explanation is being unwound: livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

LOL

Sad...bad true.

WRONG you're so arrogant you're arguing about what you nothing about.

Evolve = change over time.

Biological evolution= change in a population's allele freq over time.

Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics = evolution

Speciation = genetic divergence of a population to the point of not being able to interreproduce. Eg finches (see Darwin's finches

You honestly think you're right and the entire scientific and biology community Is wrong? Go see a shrink you paranoid narcissist

no it's not. darwinian and neo-darwinian evolution have both been totally discredited, if you actually read things that are not nonsense made for mouth breathers shilled by bill nye and neil degrass tyson you would see that. evolution is a fairy tale , just like religion , only religion has the balls to tell you it's all based on faith

>completely avoids the premise
yeah, that'll convince anyone

that 'study' is incomplete and obviously biased leaning and you know that. the iron components in the blood would've not only oxidized but given the surrounding minerals would've absorbed into them and not have been an element as part of the tissue itself. if science is going to claim that dead, soft tissue can be preserved through millions of years without a bio-chemical agent, then show the proof instead of doing damage control like that 'study'

When did this become an argument about the origin of life? Aren't we discussing evolution???? Evolution is the fact and theory of the change in life AFTER life began

You fools, science and God work hand in hand.

God designed the playbook that the subatomic world operates on, and operates within the boundaries HE designed. Mountains can be moved by faith because the elements themselves respect the power of the individual. We are all interconnected on a small level.

God has used mortal and physical means to achieve the impossible for all eternity and will continue to do so. Just because we do not know how he does it, does not nullify the fact that his power is very real.

Whether the earth was created through a big bang, or through any other means is irrelevant.

show one example of speciation

the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

please show one, just one. that we have observed , not an inference or a assumption, actually observed.

>this study doesn't conform to my narrative!
>better disregard it out-of-hand, that'll fool 'em!
Nah.

>What are black people.

Errr yes it is fact you're so uneducated you have no idea what the fucking simple definition of evolution is. You think it's kingdoms of animals magically turning into new kingdoms

purely depends on preservation. In the right conditions tissue wouldn't ever break down.

i think it's agreeable that when we're referring to 'science' we're talking about the institutions and academia

Darwin's finches are a classic example. The "same" birds but with different beaks, to put it simply. What's do hard to understand? Wolves and dogs? Get it yet?

>believing the earth is 6000 years old isn't as ridiculous as the universe magically appearing out of nowhere and what you see today on earth came out of random chance

But you're OK with an omnipotent, omiscient, everloving God magically appearing out of nowhere out of random chance to create what you see today?

Why does deep time bother you?

Going tit for tat on each piece of evidence is a waste of time. I suspect that the root of the problem is your insecurity with the concept and want to address that instead.

All life has to start somewhere. If evolution was as concrete of an argument as some say it is, back-tracking to 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' shouldn't be such a big deal.

If you would like to constrain your belief in that matter, be my guest.

>this study conforms to my narrative
>better not question its validity and accept it by choice!
you have low IQ

>right conditions
>dead, soft tissue can be preserved for millions of years fossilized

i dont like being a monkey it's like the lamest animal. why didn't the theory of evolution say we evolved from crocodiles or something cool instead

evolution is nonsense, devolution is truth. the aryans of ancient india called it the "yugas" while the ancient greeks called it the ages of man:

>golden age/satya yuga
>silver age/treta yuga
>bronze age/dwapara yuga
>iron age/kali yuga

evolution as a definition has several points, most of which deal with natural selection, which is observable. we have no known examples of speciation

spe·ci·a·tion
ˌspēSHēˈāSHən,ˌspēsē-/Submit
nounBIOLOGY
the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

wait i'll give you some examples

but wait finches are an example right ? of course you are right ,national geographic did several stories on them

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html

Evolution may sometimes happen so fast that it's hard to catch in action, a new study of Galápagos finches suggests.

be a good goy now and listen to bill nye

Science is the framework of the attempt to use the senses (experimentation and measurements etc) to give a more reliable explanation of our environment. Anyone who thinks science is inferior to religion is mentally ill

Also, what would objectively prove to you the age of the universe and the existence of evolution?

Do you have a criteria for this?

Sorry you're showing your ignorance. We can have a discussion on the origin of life if you want but it's a completely separate discussion to the origin of species and no, they're not related in any way whatsoever. The mechanism of the start of life has no bearing on what happened afterwards.

Its findings are explained in the article. Did you read it?

Additionally, the study found that dead, soft tissue "was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago"

You didn't read the article. You probably haven't even read the Bible cover-to-cover, because you dislike reading. As I said previously, the only thing that this implies is that our understanding of fossilization is in need of re-evaluation.

your question is disingenuous sophistry and isn't even applicable to the conversation. the idea that anybody is bothered by the concept of millions of years just because they don't subscribe to the argument that it surrounds is absurdity. if you're going to discuss the topic then go ahead and address it instead of going off on a tangent about 'deep time'

thats not evolution you fool, that is adaptation, natural selection. the natgeo article i just linked goes on about the wonder of evolution and how it can happen in the blink of an eye. the 'evolution' was caused by a drought , which some how evolution reversed it's self when the drought ended. the reason.. it wasn't evolution the 'newly' evolved finches already existed. natural selection, is not evolution, it's not evolution if a portion of the genetic material is better suited for an environment and thrives . the evolution you are confusing it with is mutation.

If i take 200 people of your ethnic background and move them all to the center of Africa where they breed only among themselves for 12,000 years, ypu will see changes. More years pass, eventually they branch off

Every other race has neanderthal DNA which causes a whole slew of other physical but not mental (mental too) traits to be represented in them. It's however scientifically incorrect to say that an existing species has evolved more than another existing species, especially if they are in different habitats. Go to Africa, Neanderthals had no success there. Go North and only Neanderthal/Sapien combinations could survive.

Still you could actually technically say that Europeans evolved from a sapiens species that was unfit for its environment, and watch libtards get mad. But why would you say that to an actual black person's face idk, unless you wanted to be a dick.

Checked, praise kek.

So what's your point? Can't we have a proper discussion without me called a goy? It's very telling. You're still making the error of grouping evolution with speciation. Evolution specifically refers to gene changes, speciation is the logical extension of those changes over time and yes it happens at different rates in different populations under different external pressures.

Yeah, it makes me think why that one on the right is white.

>believing the world came out of nothing by chance
>believing the world came from a magical man who came from nothing and was always here

any way you go at it it defies all logic, but one of them still has to be right

Sequence that genome! I've got a park to make.

Haha I love that argument. Adaption IS evolution! What else could it be???? Change in genetics in a population is evolution. What's your point????

eventually they branch off.

so what you are describing is not science , it is an assumption .

the problem is when you say eventually , you are using human generations, when we use other organisms which have much shorter generations that we can measure easily over the course of weeks and years, we have never observed a branching off, we observe more of the same.

speciation is the logical extension of those changes over time

where is the observable examples of it happening? there are none. how is it scientific again? because bill nye said it? or because it was in a 'science' magazine

dunno why I bother but again: a neanderthal genome isn't substantial enough evidence to claim interbreeding with early modern humans. Come back when you have a heidelbergensis genome or other candidate for a common ancestor and you can tell me those sequences aren't thus derived. That's where the scholarship is.

first of all, scientists don't even claim to know the certain age of the universe and if any of them did they're a quack. i'm not even talking about evolution right now either. i'm merely asking for proof that all dinosaurs died out millions of years ago when the evidence of their soft tissue remains says otherwise

Don't forget:
>believing that the area outside the world is water
>believing that this is where the rain comes from