Creationism

Evolution's gonna make a monkey outta you!

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversial_Comments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Sale_of_Nobel_Prize_Medal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

m8 it's too late for shitty bait like this

Didn't stop you from replying, did it?

You're right, I guess I'm a #hillarymissile now

>I don't want to be a monkey >.< !!!!
c h r i s t i a n e d u c a t i o n

Bump

Come on guys.

>He thinks his ancestors evolved from a rock
laughingwhores.jpg

>you cannot scientifically refute this picture.

Java Man was also a well known fraud.

Robustus was the last of its lineage that was snuffed out by Erectus.

sorry what needs to be refuted?

over 38% niggers in your demo stats
>implying you're not already orangutan mongrels

I'm not gonna believe in evolution until liberals start admitting there are different races again :^)

That this is, up to date, the scientific lineage of human evolution proven through fossil records (with a couple species missing in between)

...

>up to date
See this

refute this atheists

You literally cannot refute this.

> The idea of Science, is that every thing is possible

> Disagree with the Evolution THEORY

> 'Lol fucking retard.'

> The idea of Science is that every thing is possible

> People believe Science disproves God

...

...

you just refuted yourself christ cuck

you just showed everyone photographic evidence of evolution in progress

>Karl (((Sagan)))

There is literally no evidence for both sides.

> No God
> God

I respect him as a scientist, not as some idol to worship

I respect no cosmopolitan Jew

And don't think people can't be biased in Science because of their political inclinations

Why do you think we stopped believing in race last century. Superior evidence to the contrary?

If there isn't evidence for god, the assumtion tends to be there is no such thing.

Nah, scientists still consider race a thing, it's just that they keep it on the down-low to appease the libcucks.

Doesn't mean that assumption is any more true in any way shape or form

>you cannot scientifically refute this picture

Why does evolution make others disappear completely instead of staying in some places and perhaps even evolve differently?

Assumption and proof are two different things.

People that use Science and 'Evolution' as an argument against God are retarded.

Quite embarrassing that they even get outed for thoughtcrime in science

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Controversial_Comments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Sale_of_Nobel_Prize_Medal

I doesn't, you just failed to understand it.

Doesn't seem too bad. I'm actually surprised.

Explain


> I don't understand the theory.

> 'Wuhhh dumbass'

...

> Multiple Million year leaps

What happened in between?

Doesn't seem bad that the co-discoverer of DN-fucking-A had to sell his Nobel fucking prize because he was squeezed out of his income for THOUGHTCRIME

THOUGHT-CRIME

In Science?

Think about that for a minute

Eating, sleeping, and fucking, just like their ancestors.

I mean in difference. There's a clear difference between the top 3. What happened in between that makes the top one look this way?

Small changes over millions of years. Remember, each one of these fossils is a snapshot in time.

You're an idiot. Let me explain this to you like a child because I really wasn't expecting a response that stupid.

>Why does evolution make others disappear completely

"evolution" doesn't. If a species cannot survive to reproduce, they no longer have offspring and their genes do not carry on. Those with favorable genes that help them survive do reproduce and their genes do carry on.

> instead of staying in some places and perhaps even evolve differently

This is what is happening. The species is no longer around and has *Gasp*... evolved into a scientifically distinguishable species.

This is a process that takes millions of years.

Microevolution is observable and factual. Macroevolution is a myth, a lie and a scam. Never has been observed.

I love how Sup Forums claims to be redpilled and falls for the evolution Jew

Also I love how you can have an opinion on anything but as soon as you question evolutionary dogma you are considered a crazy.

Forgot the picture.

What do you think caused these changes? Look at the top 2, and the difference in shape and color.

Isn't every skull different?

> Evolving means the inferior species just dissapear without any evidence of them ever being there in the first place

Wew lad


> Find one skull that's older and a bit different than new ones

> WE WERE LIKE THIS BEFORE!

> Even though there is no evidence of transitioning

> Disagree with notion and theory

> Get called a retard

Mutations; also, the difference in color is due to fossilization, I don't know why they're using a modern African skull instead of Cro-Magnon Man.

>no evidence of transitioning

>still not understanding the difference between colloquial theory and scientific theory
>People think science disproves God
The chance of one existing, no. The chance of one having direct space magic influence, yes.

It "disproves" that kind of God and anything supernatural only by definition

Pic related

What? What the fuck?

> Evolving means the inferior species just dissapear without any evidence of them ever being there in the first place

Are you unable to comprehend information presented to you? There IS evidence there. The inferior species HAS disappeared, the evidence is the fossils, and it has been replaced with the superior species.

There is no set species "magically" dissapearing and another one taking its place. Evolution is constantly happening, and the animals with the more favorable genes fit for surviving breed more, and eventual replace the inferior species.

The answer is so simple. Please think before responding.

Explain the image.

> Please think before responding

I am thinking. I just disagree with the Evolution Theory.

> 'LOL CHRISTIAN FAG'

I'm not religious either. I lean more towards being agnostic.

Evolution is real, manmade global warming is not real. Is everybody happy now?

What does it look like to you?

Literally 5 skulls that are different from one another. It doesn't mean shit though.

Take 5 people and measure their skulls. All 5 are different in size and weight.

An arrow-shaped figure?

>Literally 5 skulls that are different from one another. It doesn't mean shit though.


Yes, skull sizes that show obvious differences in physically appearance, difference in brain sizes, and easily identifiable changes in teeth which show the primary diet.

none of it means shit.

What happened in the lines? Where are the skulls that proof the transition? How would one know that it's not just a skull that's misfigured?

The people are from the modern day. Each one of these are from different time periods and have been lined up in a chronological order from first to last.

>only by definition
Is this the best the British have to offer?
Okay then, provide evidence against the leading theories in, well, anything, and evidence, then, for divine spontaneous intervention. Oh wait, you can't. Because there is none. But I'm sure your viewpoint of "because it's really real guise I mean come on" is going to hold water with anyone with two brain cells to rub together, even if one of the cells is dead.

get a job faggots.

The fact that others like them have been found in the same damn area.

Where is the proof that they transitioned to one another?

> 'There's a difference in diet and shape'

Yeah you said that. That doesn't prove the transitioning though.

>easily identifiable changes

I guess it's just that obvious isn't it?

Case closed

Five different skulls, not an argument. Could be five skulls from the same time from different kinds of monkeys, some deformed skulls of animals that didn't reproduce, etc.

Still doesn't prove the transitioning. That they were found in the same area, actually dissproves that we all originated from these people.

Those ARE the transitional skulls, retard.

>just a skull that's misfigured?
There is a lot more to these fossils than just 'looking disfigured' that paleontologists look at that the layperson doesn't see.

That literally is the proof. What part of transitioning do you not understand?

That, by definition, is a transition.

I meant that in the areas that each one was found (ex. Australopithecus in Africa, and Neanderthals in Europe) you'd find similar remains from that strata.

I'm going to line up literally thousands of skulls on a picture to show every minute

> Let me just refrain to name calling instead
> You're a retard for disagreeing

> There is a lot more to these fossils than just looking disfigured

The image contradicts that notion.

> Those ARE the transitional skulls

There are huge differences in shape and tone. Not subtle ones. Transitioning means subtle changes.

>provide evidence against the leading theories in, well, anything, and evidence, then, for divine spontaneous intervention

Look at pic related again carefully, try to understand it (use google if you have to) and then define "evidence" for me

>Oh wait, you can't. Because there is none.

Even if I couldn't, absence of evidence =! evidence of absence

Informal logic 101

> I'm going to line up literally thousands of skulls on a picture to show every minute I'll refuse to post evidence that make my argument stronger

Suit yourself.

>different diets and shapes aren't transitioning
What the fuck are you looking for?

A new species evolving doesn't require the extinction of its ancestor species.
Some do stick around in some places. Some do evolve differently.

>Microevolution is observable and factual. Macroevolution is a myth, a lie and a scam. Never has been observed.
This is bait, right?

> What the fuck are you looking for?

Subtle changes instead of huge leaps like the picture shows. Because that's what a transition is. And that's what evolution is.


The image could literally mean that one day, some one was a herbivore, and the other day, a omnivore.

> Some do stick around in some places

Where? No evidence of this is shown.

Are wolves extinct?

No they're not. But wolves aren't proof.

>The image contradicts that notion.
Only to a retard with no understanding of evolution. The image supports the notion.
>Transitioning means subtle changes.
Nope. It's impossible to find the bones for every point in the transition, because you would need a set for every year out of the millions of years at least. Every single species is a transitional species, including us right now. You must be trolling.
>That would prove your theory.
You don't know how proof works. Opinions discarded. Evidence isn't just what you persoanlly accepts as evidence.

Its because we haven't discovered the complete fossil record of man, and we probably never will. We have quite a bit of fossils, and that what we use to write the time line.

This "minuscule" change you hope to look for won't be found because the amount of fossils needed to be discovered would be astronomical.

Unfortunately, we don't have a boatload of homonid fossils just sitting around. They aren't easy to come by in certain places, Sub-Saharan Africa being one of them.

> We can't find bones that proof the transition

So it's fake.

> You don't understand the image
> Therefore you're a retard
> Opinion discarded
> Evidence isn't personal

Imageoftrash.png

*hominid

> We will never discover the proof of transition

That disproves the theory as a whole.

Again, it dissproves the theory.

Alright, show's over , , . "I'm only pretending to be retarded" has played his hand too much.

We'll then, let's just throw out all the dinosaurs then, because we have very few complete fossils.

> I'm only pretending to be retarded meme

Thanks for contributing to the thread and the discussion at hand. You sure showed me off my wrongs.


Literally no one was able to supply proper proof. All called me a retard for disagreeing and I'm not even religious.

No it doesn't. Are you really that naive? Can you not look at evidence and come up with a conclusion? This is the most basic of problem solving. Its ridiculous the amount of Mental gymnastics people will jump through to try and prove a point. Its Ok to admit you're wrong sometimes.

>start an evolution thread
>it's not just racist bait
>mfw actual productive discussion with a little shitposting thrown in
I like Sup Forums now.

Every day they find new evidence, dissproving the previous. 'Evidence' is nothing more than a momentary 'proof' that people use to contradict another 'evidence'. It's not even worth discussing really.

> 'T-rex and other dinosaurs may have had lips, new study shows

> 7 hours ago

early hour Sup Forums is always like this
the retards go to sleep

My argument was that there is no subtle difference shown. Just 5 skulls that look very different from one another. People claimed that the 5 skulls 'clearly' show a transition, even though they're very different and even broken at some points.

Still no proof of the transition is shown. People have gone to name calling and banter instead of providing proof to defend their claims.


> Read: 'Evolution THEORY'

It's here to be proven wrong by a better theory and you know it.

>I can't use a fucking dictionary
Evidence, pulled directly from yout fucking God, Google:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Which is why we use axioms and observations to narrow down what is and isn't true. Just because everything is possible does not mean that everything is probable, and declaring that an entire system and all the evidence pertaining to that system is wrong in place of another system is going to need both evidence for itself and against its competitor being true.
>that would prove your theory
What we've already shown is a condensed version of that. You can't honestly expect anyone to compile hundreds of skulls and place them in order, show picture evidence of every change (I don't know how the fuck you're going to show 2mm more sloping of a skull on a camera) and then fit all of this on a graphic ready to post so that people would read it, when you can show the culmination of the changes and achieve literally the exact same result in an easy to digest format. You're acting like a child.
>I want to see small changes
They take thousands of years. Thousands. Thousands of fucking years of evolution is what you want to see? Do you think fossils drop out of the freaking sky?

More like "built upon" actually. Alchemy was proven to be bullshit, but it served as the basis for modern chemistry.

For some nothing will be enough proof.
Look at this guy. Willing to accept evolution happening before his eyes but in denial that is can happen over millions of years.


Have some more examples of species that appear not to have evolved from there ancestral forms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

>All called me a retard for disagreeing
I did no such thing.

>'Evidence' is nothing more than a momentary 'proof' that people use to contradict another 'evidence'.
Baby'sFirstScienceLesson.jpg

And Europe wakes up.

>It's here to be proven wrong by a better theory and you know it.
Evolution 2.0 stronger and now retard resistant.
What do you expect it to be replaced by?

>actual productive discussion with a little shitposting thrown in
I don't think we're browsing the same thread.