The flawed theory

>Be me with my girlfriend (evolution cuck)
>We're watching NatGeo and the documentary brings up evolution
>Start laughing
>She questions
>Argument ensues

Needless to say, we've been split for a while.
Why do people believe in this hoax?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

because not everyone is retarded

weak bait. 1/10

Give me some facts.

Because science has substituted religious faith - People need a worldview to believe in and they can't accept mystery.

I believe in many scientific principles but the THEORY of evolution claims we evolved from monkeys.

bs in other words

>Why do people believe in this hoax?

Because its true.
You don't have to believe in science--but next time you get sick go and see a poet.

Why attempt to educate the ape?

Back in your hole, Koko.

We share 98% or so of our DNA with chimpanzees. Is that a coincidence or do you not believe in DNA either?

so you can practice some goalpost mobility?

Note the word "seems". Eye evolution has been posited from patches of skin with light sensitivity to pits of skin to pits with simple transparent cover, to pits with a lens, etc etc. And an organ like our eye has evolved more than once. So, yes, theory confirmed and Darwin was mistaken in this statement.

...

Fucking kill yourself you creationist subhuman.

It's not PC garbage if it's probably true.

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

nice way to end that quote

/spoiler/
People often claim usually that evolution is true BECAUSE many scientists believe in it.
Of course many scinetists beleive in it, because they are the ones who INVENTED it it the first place. No one wants to deny the fact that their own theory isn't correct.
Lots of people (including scientists) disprove evoltuion everyday, including weekends, because people with all different jobs are ALLOWED TO THINK. Even about scientific "theories"
/spoiler/

I can give four key pointers as to why it is not valid to claim for evolution being true at all times.
Starting with the first one:

Before people believed in evolution, what did they believe in? No one had even THOUGHT of a theory even slightly resembling evolution until Richard Darwin made it up in the 1800s
Also, the modern theory that is constantly foisted at all times on students in schools and in high schooles and coleges, is not even the same one that was developed back then with Darwin's.
Did the theory change? If so, why should anybody believe in it at this point, because if it could change in the past, it could just change at any time in the future and theirs no use using it at all.

Dont we also share like 70% of our dna with slugs

weak bate

Two questions to anyone who chooses to answer:

Do you accept that organisms can replicate themselves, either through asexual or sexual means, to create offspring?

Do you accept that this method is not perfect and is subject to variation and error?

Not all of us :^ )

remember, it's called the 'theory' of evolution for a reason.

it's a theory. it's never been proven as scientific fact.

Darwin wasn't mistaken, it's quote mining. In the full quote, he explains the potential path of evolution of the eye:
>To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

So basically, tl;dr
>hHy isn't this shit crazy? It sounds crazy as hell, I can't habeeb it, but here's why you might habeeb it.

Ah, the arraignment of baitedness. such a petty soliliquous development in the life and times of this incrementational existance. Dissolocutionally, such an accusation is widespread amongst those denizens of such a forum as this. Such an interlocution inevitariably leads one to assert a number of logical "fallacies," the likes of which include the impossibility of one such that he is of the disposition most true to the ideology in question, simply put, thusforth such a fallacy has been known in the present day and age as a "strawman" or a "slippery slope" fallacious argumentation. one of the concerns with such an argument as "bait" is a supplemenation of one "murphies law," a statute which holds that one extreme argument may be so similar to that of a comedic appropriatation of such as to be indistinguisable from it. this concern though, as far as can be determined by an unbiased and logically unfallacious mind such as have considered the issue, is nevertheless wrought by one slight issue, which is that one can never "prove" the truth value of the stipulation of murphies law using a proof-theoretic analysis, which imbues a degree of uncertainness into the "law." one solution thusly would almost certainly be to accept the non-baitedness of such a claim, taking such a stance as the "null hypothesis" of the claimant, who should be required to prove his own stance as an impressionist of extremism before a communal forum shall take his own thoughts as bait or such as.

...

Yup. We're closest to Mice and rats, hence the animal studies.

Adaptation is a real, testable, provable phenomena. Evolution is supposed to be the overall process of adaptation, but we haven't been able to observe it.

We wont't.

Good ol' "Richard Darwin" and his Theory of Evolution."

Fucking retard.

don't you share like 100% of your DNA with leafs?

All animals share a large amount of DNA, purely because there is so much fucking DNA in one person. But as much DNA as 98% means that they probably evolved from the same ancestor.

That quote was made before anyone realized the Earth is some 4 billion years old.

Is that a pasta?

quite the contrary my good lad, what a fine day to be dissertating at such a pleasantry of a question. this discernment is quiet unfortunately inccorrect as ever before has anyone seen, for it is quiet unlikely that such a question be ramificationable in the not-so-distant forthcomings; As you are undoubtedly salient, evolution has never been ascendantly validated, and therefore is not such as would most likely be considered in the upper eschelon of scientific inquirey as "true science." Though it may be the case that in such a day and age such as this, many do accept it as thus; lamentaciously; the various evidentialities of evolutionary "science" (requiring that it be called such is a misnomer; unfortunately) are the result of might we call a CONSPIRATION of the upper classes of under-educated scientists [of the 19th centuries]. Keep in mind that an animal such as an aardvark is said to have existed AFTER the time of an animalistic creature such as a Trilobyte. However, bear in mind the word-initial letters in each case. Aardvark: "A," trilobytte ("T"). If the trilobite existed prior to the aardvark, then why does aardvark begin with a letter prior to the first letter of trilobyte? If evolution were indeed most EFFICEINT, wouldn't the names of animals begin with the first letter of hte alphabet, then working it's way through to the later letters? we do not find this patter exant among those animals who exist supercilliously today.

>scientific theory
>not fact beyond reasonable doubt
>BUT IT'S CALLED A THEORY BAAAAW!1!
really can't tell if troll

>Did the theory change? If so, why should anybody believe in it at this point, because if it could change in the past, it could just change at any time in the future and theirs no use using it at all.
Are you saying that since science changes, science should be disregarded? Jesus H. Tittyfucking Christ. The entire philosophy of science can be summed up as "prove me wrong."

Everyone likes to be an armchair scientist about evolution and claim there's some giant conspiracy to advance it, but they can never provide an alternate explanation for the diversity of life and the fact that many organisms share related structures. Well, they can provide one, actually: a wizard did it.

>mad as fuck atheist detected

>but the THEORY of evolution claims we evolved from monkeys.
hide bait threads
sage

>THEORY of evolution claims we evolved from monkeys.

No, it does not.

...

Mitochondria, which exist in almost all of our cells, look almost exactly like bacteria. They have a circular chromosome just like bacteria. They have cell membrane lipids that are just like bacteria. They create energy in a way that's just like bacteria. In fact, scientists have narrowed down that mitochondria must be closely related to the SAR11 clade of proteobacteria, and they theorize that these bacteria established a symbiotic relationship with the early Eukaryotic cell.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

Don't you find that a little strange?

gravity is a theory too. stop believing in it. go ahead. jump. god will surely catch you.

God dun it

then why glasses i have never had to buy glasses for a computer lense

Evolutionists think this is real lol

>this stuff that God created is a lot like other stuff that God created
>so God isn't real

Atheist "logic"

maybe cause that was Murica's job?

...

Have any of you atheists seen this?

You'd be surprised what can happen with billions of years of trial and error, all that is required is one just one fucking organism has a mutation which starts the development of the primitive eye to see in water, and from there it just takes off because it's such a superior advantage over the organisms which can't perceive light. Is this really not plausible enough for you to conceive?

>get destroyed with simple logic
>b-b-b-bait

Answer this one, then. You'd think by now we'd have "evolved" to be perfect social creatures

...

Are your parents still together? Then it's reasonable to believe that you look similar to one or both of them, but you are not completely identical. This is true for most people around the world with their parents as well.

Can dead people create children? They can't. Not without some expensive in vitro fertilization. Think back at a time before modern medicine and lack of civility. People who could not figure out how to survive died before getting children all the time because of the lack of goodwill from their peers.

If people are similar, but not identical to their parents, and dead people can not make children. Given a great length of time, why do you think it is unreasonable to think that your ancestry looked nothing like you?

This one is actually pretty funny

>implying they're not all funny

The problem is simply that creationism cant hold up to any scrutiny and evolution is the best proofed theory we have. Not to mention, if there are errors in any of the theories it will be proved with more science. Im fine with christians and their religion, but when people assume evolution isnt the most accurate model without understanding any of it is irritating.

>proofed

Evolution can't even explain a simple thing like this -- you'd think after hundreds of billions of years, we'd have all "evolved" immortality by now

...

i thought evolution is a slow process also gods a dick in that case because why would you make people retarded

Bacteria and viruses evolve too. Is it so hard to just be honest and say you dont get it or dont want to get it?

Nah. Evolution on needs you to have sex at least once and spawn some brood or something. After you have sex, you can die for all that evolution cares. I mean spiders and praying mantis eat each other. Evolution doesn't naturally create immortality.

You are thinking about the Singularity.

just.....if your kind happens to evolve near Chernobyl you'll probably get an eye on your ass because shiiiet radiation, if you evolve in perfect conditions you'll get bigger, faster, smarter etc. the process by which you become that guy with an eye on his butt or the superdindu is that thing called evolution. IT'S A PROCESS NOT A RESULT.

im just curious as to the point of retarded people if god created us.... or was he half assin it

And secondly why does evolution negate the Bible? Hell, the Pope believes in evolution. Its all this protty shit that believes earth is 6000 based on guessing how old people were in the Bible.

You don't know that god used evolution to create mankind. Hell... Adam could have been a monkey. God doesn't give a shit.

welp looks like the bait master leaf has blown away.... he was a masterbaiter

Adam is explicitly stated to be formed from dust. And note that this is the old testament, not the new one, so your metaphysical bs doesn't apply there.

>mad atheists

Guess evolution really is just a "theory"! You'd think by now that we'd have "evolved" a perfect understanding of the world and there'd be no scientific debate. How come this perfect science is always being proven wrong?

Because what's right is the Bible, and so all anti-God science is just a bunch of eggheads trying different ways to say black is white.

>butthurt commie still mad that his atheist godless physicists created Chernobyl, unlike the accident-free nuclear record of the God-fearing free world

The retarded are perhaps the most blessed by God, because they can easier accept His love and teachings

Because you lose your theodicy.

usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/

Evolution is real, anthropogenic global warming is not.
Is everyone happy now?

>lol the Bible says man was made from dust lmao how retarded can u get hahaha
>whoa Carl Sagan said we're all made of stardust so deep science e is amazing like and share if u agree

This argument is so common: literally "similarity = relation." But similar organisms would have similar DNA whether they evolved or were created.

When did scientific theory get proven wrong? Also, whats the evidence for God?

what..... that argument... wait wait your telling me mentally slow people tend to like god more...... shit man enjoy heaven

Did Carl Sagan also say that females are made by tearing out men's space-ribs?

Fpbp

The fuck USA?

Evolution is falsified because life cannot come from non-life. God is the only Uncaused Cause and the only [rational] explanation for life.

Also, consider that evolution is founded on genetic mutation, which is a biologically destructive concept. Genetic mutation rarely, if ever, gives a species something to help it be better equipped for survival. It's always albinism, an extra head, or autism or something useless.

No one can prove evolution, because it's utter horseshit. The best they can do is claim correlation=causality. Because genes and species look similar, they must be related. Idiotic and unscientific.

Probably at some point. You know how much weed that guy smoked?

>implying I haven't proven scientific "theory" wrong 7 times in this thread alone

Here's a simple one -- how come the purest document of living truth available today, written thousands of years ago but whose lessons and laws still govern the life of every single human on Earth, doesn't mention your precious "evolution" even once?

Enjoy burning in the very hottest circle of Hell, the one reserved for those who turn away from the love of God, misled by Pride of Intellect

>no, it doesn't

shut up. with supporters like you who needs enemies?

>All these brainwashed muricans and leaves

Guess I'm gunna burn in hell just like daddy told yeh :^)

Kill yourself.

>THEORY
>implying theory in science means hypothesis
2/10 b8, made me reply

> god loves you
> he will burn you for eternity in the hottest circle of hell if you use your brain to realize there is no evidence or any reason at all to believe he exists

Lol

>Evolution can't even explain a simple thing like this -- you'd think after hundreds of billions of years, we'd have all "evolved" immortality by now

have more respect for our ancestors. they haven't managed to evolve immortality but at least they died trying to.

>Here's a simple one -- why no evolution in bible?

ummm it was a book written by people tripin on mushrooms

>smart people go to hell

so even if im a good person but i dont hold all his truths literally ill go to hell....... well shit man fuck ur god hes a dick. tell um i said that if u meet him

It doesnt, im not sure how you assume that to be true. Other religions think and act differently, that should be a hint.

evolution IS in the bible. find the part where jacob breeds striped animals.

first things first - A FUCKING LEAF
second - pic
3th - because I live in I hate communism or any other kind of collectivist shit with a passion. that includes organized religion.
see that's what communism did to me - it demonstrated what the real evil is in this world - people that want heaven upon you. not imaginary friends, not bombs, not capitalism, not communism, not religions, not murder but people that really truly believe what they are doing is for the greater good and that they know better because some book written by some fraudster or druggie says so.
there are no true believers except the ones that mean you good. and those the world would be much better off if it would dispose of. because those will produce true evil, the kind the believes itself good.
sorry for long ranty ungrammatical incoherent rabble leaf but i'm quite sleepy. going to sleep now hoping tomorrow muh communistoid lord satan von beelzebub raptures me to the eternal gardens of evolutionary science.

genesis 30:37-39

>well shit man fuck ur god hes a dick. tell um i said that if u meet him

You can tell Him yourself, you're going to meet Him right before he sends you to the lake of fire Other religions think and act differently, that should be a hint.

Obviously -- since the Bible is God's truth, and there is only one truth, it logically follows that Satan's lies (all other religions) will be varied in their nonsense.

>implying crossbreeding is evolution

Crossbreeding is real, just look at all the breeds of dogs. Evolution, however, isn't mentioned even once, because it's not.

>long butthurt commie rant
>i-im going to bed
>internet equivalent of crying and running away

didn't even read it lol

1. They have proved evolution in a lab using quick species. (Fruit flies)

2. Is God not all powerful enough to create the universe through evolution?

Reminder that communism was an atheist ideology. Protip: evolution just follows the rules of God.

north korea is religious as fuck. ordinary people still cling to the religions of their ancestors while the state pushes a new religion, with miracles surrounding the birth of dear leader 'n shit.

>not wanting to live in Best Korea
WEW
E
W

"evolution" doesn't work upwards, or towards a specific goal for that matter

200 years ago it was smart people that had an edge in passing their genes, now it's dumb jocks

does that discredit evolution? no, it means that the environment changed and now good looks are more important than smarts (for whatever, or even no reason)

"evolution" is a misleading terms, the correct one is natural selection

>evolution did this thing gaiz
>but now it's suddenly not

>evolution made this coin land heads first
>now evolution made it land tails first!
>i fucking love science like/share if u agree!

top beigli hunbro

Intelligent design fallacy

Theory of evolution is based in empirical evidence, but still isn't trying to claim how life began. Any holy book provides equally reputable "evidence" for how life began, whether by omnipotent beings or not. Don't conflate theory of evolution to theory of genesis.

>isn't trying to claim how life began

Entropy

stop baiting like that you fucking freemason

How do you know yours is the right religion? Slavery was made okay by God in exodus. I know slavery is bad. Why didnt he speak against it?

explain the difference between crossbreeding and evolution...
guys hes not gonna change his mind theres no point preaching to the preachers of death

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives; who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?

we also share 90 % dna with cats