Atheists will defend this

>atheists will defend this

Other urls found in this thread:

phys.org/news/2015-08-bird-evolution-swapped-snouts-beaks.html
youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio&t=67s
smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-skin-was-not-covered-feathers-study-says-180963603/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yeah I can see that

Why would a dinosaur evolve from a chicken?

Yeah, what idiots. They are so dumb they don't even believe in the magic jew zombie fathering himself and then dying for our sins even though he made us sinners to begin with. How ridiculous those atheists are!

Compare 19th century whites with 21st century whites.

...

I sure will. I'm grateful dinosaurs evolved into chickens, where they become next day's meal. Their strength will be mine.

Instead they believe in magical space jew explosion creating and designing everything literally from just sitting around and doing nothing. Particles smashing against each other eventually creates the human eye. Damn so smart!

Christians will defend this.

>Particles smashing against each other eventually creates the human eye. Damn so smart
Over the course of 10^9 years that is

Naw, that's not even accurate.

>i don't understand science therefore it's false
why are creationists this dumb?

>The dinosaur is so well preserved that it “might have been walking around a couple of weeks ago,” Vinther says.

Checkmate atheists.

I'm a christian and I'll defend this.

its true though

So, there was a pretty neat study they did regarding bird beaks. Apparently, they only had to alter one gene to stop the beak from developing on chicken embryos. Little dino faced chickens would have been pretty cool, but they did not allow the eggs to hatch. Disappointed in you, science, I was so stoked for my own pet dino chicken.

Holy fuck, that really is an amazing fossil.

>T-Rex
>No feathers

>flag
post checks out

...

A link, for anyone interested:
phys.org/news/2015-08-bird-evolution-swapped-snouts-beaks.html

how do i have to defend it? it's true.
Except of that the t-rex has no feathers... baka old pre-2008 renditions.

Christians who deny science are worse than niggers and need to be executed because their willfull ignorance is stopping us from progressing as a species from colonizing the Galaxy.

If you did that millions of times over billions of years it would work.

...

thunderf00t has a 40 part series called "Why do people laugh at creationists?" where he absolutely destroys all creationist arguments on the internet made by creationtards. Atheists have destroyed creationism on the internet to the point where even Christtards are admitting their retarded book was wrong about how life originated.

Christians = white niggers

youtube.com/watch?v=EeO0JlZsXio&t=67s

Just a scientist faking evidence for evolution... no big deal...

Eh, everyone is still on the fence about that: smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-skin-was-not-covered-feathers-study-says-180963603/

Despite the misleading title, they add at the end that it's possible that they still did because 1. possibly their had them on their back and not legs/neck/tail and 2. fine protofeathers don't preserve well.

Bait

black and white fallacy.

You can have problems with creationism AND evolution... right? Can you think that 2+2 is neither 5 or 3? Is that possible in your mind?

Evolution is a fact of science just like the germ theory of disease, gravity, cosmic expansion, etc. you're just a white nigger who can't escape the scientific reality so you have to believe in Jewish fairy tales like a nigger. There is no debate. There is no questioning it. It's been verified to be true as a result or hundreds of years of data and research.

underrated

and scientists will mock you.

Because pic related is the way things really were.

>Christians = white niggers
Inferring that Christians are always white. Some Christians are nigger niggers.

Bah Jesus thinks hes awesome on his cold one mount.

What if I'm a christian and I believe that evolution happened?

What does that have to do with atheism?

muh gazillions of years.

>daemon, heretic, and a witch

exterminatus when?

So will Christians you moron.

Chickens are savage little cunts. They'll fight on against each other when bleeding out and missing an eye. They kill and eat mice and snakes. I can see the resemblance.

Let alone the non domesticated and larger birds like cassowary, birds of prey, and pic related which subsists almost entirely on eating bones.

I think it's neat that it had a beard

cold weather adaptation?

As opposed to invisible magic man clicks his finger like bewitched

Nature runs bloody deep with you wankers

that is one of the most retarded things I have ever seen

It's close to the heart

Do atheists even entertain the possibility of a God? I know I'm faced everyday wondering if God exists and I choose to believe so. It just seems like such an easy way out to me. What's it like to give up on meaning? What do you guys use to replace the emptiness?

Kek!

scientologists want you to believe deinosaurs evolved into this

Cept we have simulations that run in cycles that are 1 nano second that perform billions of computations that create new datasets that fed back into the simulation that do not even get near to anything besides just paint being slammed on a wall.

DNA and its physical structure is proof that randomness did not create life as we have it on this world. Thats not to say physical conditions on the planet did not SCULPT life is a certain direction.

You don't get offspring from nothing in this real world that we live in. There was something that created me. It was my mother and my father. There was something that created them and so on and so on. I don't have to go further really.

If you go back far enough you find nothing that could have created you.

if you go back far enough there was no planet Terra IF you go back further there is nothing.

Open your mind and understand that data is not random and that no math is random. There is no randomness to numbers. All math is solved and has an answer. There are no equations that don't have answers. and there are no answers that don't have equations.

>tfw you will never have T-rex tendies
Why even have good boy points, anons?

He user: if elementary particles can't touch and, in absence of bonding, actually repel each other; how did enough matter coalesce in order to create the emergent property of gravity (which itself is necessary for the formation of large bodies)?

Looking forward to your answer,
t: brainless creationist.

...

>thankfully, someone else has already done all my thinking for me.
Isn't that great. Have you considered that proving a person wrong/incoherent/inconsistent doesn't make and idea incorrect? That a person can agree with something without understanding it (as you have indicated you do yourself)?

Actually, evolution is just theoretical taxonomy and can't be labeled as scientific by any stretch of the imagination. It is missing MOST of the characteristics which, when ALL are present, makes the scientific method valid for pursuing truth [eg, reproducability].

Maybe stop getting your ideas about "science" from god damn celebrities and open a fucking book.

I really should have specified: macro evolution and cosmic evolution. Genetic adaptation is very well understood and much, very real, science has been done on the matter.

Why don't you go and prove it wrong so u can get yourself a Nobel prize. You'll be hailed as the new Darwin. Go on man.. fame, riches and accolades are waiting for you.

>Another thread where retarded Christian zealots make me lose faith in humanity

Pic related is the only possible evidence I can cite. Modern day velociraptors.

R E M O V E

b-but the jews are taking over the academia

How does one prove taxonomy wrong? It's like proving a stamp collection is wrong.

Whenever something INVALIDATES it, they reorganize the time charts and everyone pretends that the newest version is obviously correct and never talk about the old one they defended ever again. Same thing with space, as above, so below. Sun has gotten (considerably) further away i think 4 times in my lifetime, every single time people act like you are a flat Earther if you use the previous figure that was only changed a few months ago.

You are in a cult, bro. Look around you.

Get off Sup Forums liberal, you don't belong here.

>liberal
>because don't believe the earth is 6000 years old

>How does one prove taxonomy wrong?
>what is filogenetics
>Whenever something INVALIDATES it, they reorganize the time charts and everyone pretends that the newest version is obviously correct and never talk about the old one they defended ever again. Same thing with space, as above, so below. Sun has gotten (considerably) further away i think 4 times in my lifetime, every single time people act like you are a flat Earther if you use the previous figure that was only changed a few months ago.
this is the thing with science, nothing is a dogma, you must be sceptic of everything you've told. Those who you describe are continuelly refuted.
>You are in a cult, bro. Look around you.
No you look around and inform you before talk nonsense

>Science is observation with the application of metrics.
>Metrics don't exist beyond the observer.
Science is a unicorn, non-existing beyond conscious existence.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall see God".

Yeah, me too. Why can't an animal regress in stature as a survival trait?

I'm a Christian, but in large part because I've peaked into the complexity of human life as a physical chemist. When I see, for example, the mathematics of protein manufacture, I see God.

Or do you see probability?

>filename

I'm really proud of you, but you need to understand that the vast majority of people in this world believe science is immutable.
>filogenetics
>filo
Yeah, I'm totally gonna listen to you because you seem so well-educated on the subject. PS: phylogenetics is, again, taxonomy. It is, again, not a science [again eg; reproducibility]

>the vast majority of people in this world believe science is immutable
the vast majority of people in this world are religious and superstitious as fuck

fuck these things honestly

what utter cunts

>atheistards still think their beliefs are backed up by science and that science is on their side or something when every notable scientist were theists

Take that, tyrant lizard! Your descendants degenerated into little feathered niglets!

lmao i made a typo using the prefix in spanish but well you are a proud ignorants and square thinking
>phylogenetics is, again, taxonomy. It is, again, not a science
>not science
BAHAHAHAHAHA american creationist education

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. What religion do they ascribe to when God is dead? Which new superstitions will they hold when science takes away the old?
They follow "$cience" religiously.
It seems you literally don't understand what science is. Phylogenetics literally skips the half that makes it "science". I consider only things that follow the general rubric in pic related as "science" because that is hat the word means.

How do YOU define science?

That's not how it works, fucking dipshit.

>They follow "$cience" religiously.
If I'm not mistaked, Christians in America are the biggest ideological capitalists out there

Taxonomy is not science i'm agree with this, cause is an arbitrary way of order species, etc. Phylogenetics it IS science when with help of genome mapping and carbon dating, try to related one specie to other and put them in a timeline. Again you need to get deep in the topic to make an argument and not only reading their front page definitions.

One more try you dense motherfucker:
How is it science without a reproducible experiment to validate their hypothesis or conclusion? (Turns out it's fucking taxonomy with more details)
Again, how do you define science? This may be easier if I knew how exactly you were wrong.

>reproducible experiment
we've been breeding animals for years. We know how genes work

Do you happen to live in a part of Canada that is filled with these creatures, user? Because I am!

Since the answer to this question cannot be provided, the obvious answer is god and creationism

>How is it science without a reproducible experiment to validate their hypothesis or conclusion?
Do you have evidence of this? fuckin pseudointellectual christcuck or you are only talking from your ass? And stop your pathetic atempt of argument muh hypothesis, muh conclusion. The scientific method isnt a obligatory set of steps, it is a suggestion to improve the chance of obtain data and science is a representation of the reality that happens to be the least incorrect.

OH BOY I LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN BEING PECKED CONSTANTLY BY THESE WONDERS OF NATURE. Fuck em honestly

No I won't, because the T-Rex fucking died off before it could evolve

Science will defend this. Science will defend atheism. I'm a theist but logic, reason and evidence deduce evolution as a process of creation.

If you think that picture is how evolution works, you might be legitimately mentally handicapped.
Find out more at your local doctors office.
You may qualify for monetary assistance to help cope with being disabled.

How many T-rexes have we bred?
Repeat for all extinct species.
I see we are at least making progress that you reject actual science, so that is a start. I'll ask a third time:
How do you define science?

you're a fucking retard m8

How hard is it for you to understand that chicken only tastes good because of its dinosaur ancestry? It's seriously good protein, eat it and fuck off, it ain't just nigger food you cuck.

Science does not defend atheism. Evolution maybe.

You cant read properly or what? Re-read my last response specially the last part. Christcuck please i'm a scientist, i'm sceptic of everyone and everything but genome mapping is given us and overwhelming ammount of evidence that helps the case of phylogenetics

...

Science despise fedora tippers as much as pseudointellectual creationists

there is no argument here. The argument is, you're a fucking retard, and the rest of us are right

This part?
>The scientific method isnt a obligatory set of steps
Or this part where you imply being accurate in your "science" is not important?
> it is a suggestion to improve the chance of obtain data and science is a representation of the reality that happens to be the least incorrect.

You tacitly admit that having the least incorrect perspective of reality is NOT your goal. You also claim that science does not require a reproducible experiment to validate. To that I say that I did some "science" in the bathroom earlier and it turns out evolution is wrong. I'm sorry you cant verify it for yourself, my science is not reproducible so just believe me okay goy?

...

...

Which day did god create the microorganisms?