Atheists think this is a 'coincidence'

>atheists think this is a 'coincidence'

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TgqF-ND2XcY
sci-news.com/paleontology/article01081-johnny-depp-fossil-kootenichela-deppi.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Does scorpion taste good?

Does lobster?

they probably evolved from eachother

They do

Isn't that called convergent evolution? In which case they don't think it's a coincidence and actually think it's occurs as a product of evolutionary requirement.

Just to point out I ain't an atheist but that's not to say they're fucking idiots

crawdads do... scorpions not so much. Maybe if i had a recipe to make them taste good idk. I just cut off the stinger and roasted on a fire bear grylls style

...

>I dont understand this thing, therefore god exists

Those little guys live in old books.

>I fear morality, therefore steady state

IMAGINE IF THEY FUCK EACH OTHER

IMAGINE

yeah tastes like spider, so like chicken. u know

Afgans smoke them to get high. Makes them trip balls. That's all I know.

That's not how it works, you little shit.

you mean they share a common ancestor?

EVOLUTION IS VERY SMALL PART OF ATHEIZM, WHY ALL THE BUTHERT GOTO THIS?

Why does evolution always prefer poison? , while there are some awesome fuckers like the bombardier beetle who use some hot chemical reaction , hell i think that even a fire breathing creature would have been possible , but its poison poison poison lame evolution.

snibbity snab ;-DDDD

No where near as good as swan.

>allergy to crab and shrimp
>afraid to try lobster

such is being an atheist.

>sea snipper
>land snipper
???

Modern crustaceans are more closely related to insects than arachnids.

>filename
kek/10 shoes how much christfags know

you've got this backwards.

christian explanation of OP's pic:
>god's creation is full of patterns and internal logic which makes sense since there's a common designer

atheist explanation of OP's pic:
>no fucking idea why b-but must be evolution

the more we understand the world on a microscopic scale, the more atheists have to resort to an "evolution of the gaps" argument.

evolution has non intent...
if it works... it stays.
if not... it dies out.

>Creationists think that the redundant and outright retarded biochemical cycles in the cells was created
Its literally babby's first programming with some brute force trial and error occurring within your cells. God is a paste eater if he exists and made that.

yes, what kind of dumb fucking question is that

Gay scorpions

I had one of them crawling on my shower wall. It's the only time in my life that I was delighted, confused, and concerned at the same time.

Beat me to it.

It's okay. Won't kill you. Won't make you vomit or ill. Worth a try at least once.

Your argument is retarded and not all "evolutionist" or "Scientist" are atheist. You can reconcile both aspects of your life if you understand the use of science and religion in your life.

But then again keep being part of the retards that keep denying the obvious because of a dogmatic doctrine.

FUCK THIS USELESS EVOLUTION. ATHEUST WILL KILL YOU WITHOUT THIS EVOLUTUON JUST BY GODLIKE POWER OF SELF

>t. expert dna programmer because I skimmed a book by an edgy atheist with no qualifications in genetics

I'd like to see you do a better job

no its random mutations what is better then fire breathing creatures

youtube.com/watch?v=TgqF-ND2XcY

I've got a BS in Biochemistry and I'm talking about Biochemistry in general not genetics

>grandfather owns an old bookshelf he never touches
>dies
>he leaves it to me in his will
>i check out some of the old books, including a first edition Brave New World
>open it up just because curiousity
>ten of these fucks all crawling throughout it

Had to get the exterminator to clean the shit out. I hope the gas he used didn't fuck up the pages

I've never seen a gay scorpion, homosexuality is a twisted invention created by godless atheists.

It tastes like fish but worse.

0/10 reading comprehension

when did I say that all scientists/evolutionists are atheists? or that science and religion are incompatible?

It's not a fucking coincidence! They're very closely related and have a commonbancestor. What you just posted is one of the most clearly visible empirical supports for evolution.
Fucking crosskike!

ALL THIS EVOLUTION OR BIG BANG QUESTION IS NON REVALENT.
CRUSTIANITY SUCK COSE POWERLESS ATHEUZM RULE COSE GODLIKE POWERFULL

How would you know a scorpion is gay if you never asked it?

Deserts were full of water after Ice Age, so its safe to assume that desert scorpions evolved this way because of climate change, and before that they were close relatives to modern day lobsters.

Or almighty god just loves lobsters that much, but if so, why the fuck dont we look like lobsters? We dont have anything in common.

U WANT BRITNEY SPEARS 12yr CLONE??? SEND MONEY

we all share a common ancestor

>thinks cell biochemistry is unrelated to genetics

This

Evolution isn't based on intention. You're thinking of intelligent design.

>thinks genetics is a blueprint by God
You really should not be posting in a science topic.

For that to work, you'd have to have an animal that"randomly" breathed fire. The beetle's ancestors most likely sprayed irritating position out of their rears.

>Defending FAGvolution

u rite now lol

Oh you are right, but then I don't see why attack "atheist" on their idea of not knowing how something works and accepting the consensus of the scientific community to explain it.

Saying that because they accept being ignorant on a subject and accepting that fact and recurring to science to explain it is worse than believing you have the answer because of your religion doctrine is retarded as shit.

That position I have only see it on retards that completely don't understand science and truly believe in dogma of their faith.

The reality is that explaining why shit is accepted as fact by the scientific community is hard and it takes years of study. For example people always ask me about how we can know for certainty that the Big Bang actually happen but then can't say what happen before it, how can be so certain of events that happen so long ago, I usually just say to them that truly understanding that it takes years of study so the only thing they can do in their ignorance is either accept the fact that they are ignorant and accept the consensus of the scientific community or study all for themselves and try to prove the scientific community wrong but I also warn them than the possibility of proving someone wrong on accepted facts is really small and usually only reserved for the most brilliant scientist that basically change or create new fields of study.

Thisss

>Arguing with an Australian

Not an argument

...

This made me think.

you realize we have ID's here right?
Look above your post, that's your ID.

I know you've only been posting for 2 days; but you really should lurk moar before you do.
Or you'll make a fool of yourself, like you're doing now.

No disrespect tho. Have a gif

I think it's actually divergent evolution

Yes. All this colledge level tardeses must shitup

>Post picture clearly showing evidence of macro-evolution
>Implies it disproves evolution.

>Macro-FAGvolution

This

THIS

It's micro evolution tho. (micro = within a kind; macro = to other kinds...)
But you'll find it hard to argue this, because the believe "all evolution is micro evolution".. (It isn't; but micro and macro basically are... At least in theory)

I don't really care whether or not certain scientific conventions hold up. It's never an A or B matter for me because I don't see why I should believe in the existence of spiritual things.

Why at all should I believe in goblins and angels and elves and demons and magic?

I have no problem with people admitting ignorance such as "we don't have an explanation for that yet" or "there are several theories but none of them have strong evidence at this time." This is, as you say, part of doing science properly.

What annoys me is when people can't admit their ignorance and instead blindly cling to their faith in their favourite scientific theory (evolution, etc.) saying they don't know how it happened but their theory will one day be able to explain it. This is the very same as the god-of-the-gaps argument that these people such as user like to invoke as a straw-man, but they are blind to their hypocrisy.

Maybe you're misunderstanding what "this" means... It like a upvote on Facebook..
Kinda, but not really. It basicly means "I agree with this statement".

That's why it's shamefull to constantly agree with yourself.
It's like saying "/thread" at the end of your own post. Also not-done.

Nah its just a lobster and a scorpion their dna is also way of to be a ancestor

Ok. Now shitup

Macroevolution is microevolution writ large.

this

Thisss

Oh I actually agree with you on that but I don't see the mistake of people doing so with science than with god. Because in one you put your faith in a model that is basically build on self improving methods while on the other you are putting your faith in an ideology that its hole existence is based on not being discussed or challenged and shall be accepted as fact for all time.


If people argue that they don't know something but someone, eventually, could be able to explain it following the scientific method, I would hold that person slightly in a high regard than the person arguing about non scientific theories being true because science can't (currently) explain it.

What does buddhism think of evolution?

That's what I said.

haha, well done old chap

Shit, now he'll keep doing it.. You happy now?

>snibbity snab

Thist

rare

sci-news.com/paleontology/article01081-johnny-depp-fossil-kootenichela-deppi.html

Read a different book once in a while.

Strawman: The Post

Yeah, and I phrased it like a witty aphorism. You're welcome.

Royalties for using my soundbite are $0.05 per usage. I take bitcoin, gold or 235U.

>If people argue that they don't know something but someone, eventually, could be able to explain it following the scientific method, I would hold that person slightly in a high regard

this only makes sense if you assume a priori that everything must have a naturalistic explanation and even that all natural phenomena can be explored through repeated scientific trials

but your adherence to philosophical naturalism is an assumption, it has no evidence, certainly not any which could be validated by the scientific method

do you believe that everything that has happened, will happen and could happen can be explained using the scientific method?

if there is even one thing or event in the universe which does not follow the typical "rules of nature", then by definition science will never be able to explain it

leaf. the post

This

There are a lot of interesting extinct animals that filled niches currently occupied. Like large herbivore crocodiles that lived on land.

>responding to someone calling out your strawman with another strawman

>not knowing what a strawman is

The problem is that you are acting like we can't describe nature. Quantic theory, Relativism and traditional Newtonian theory can explain "most" of the nature as we know it, while there are holes science is advancing trying to search for where and what are we missing. It is a long journey one that most likely we aren't going to see resolved but we do have a model where we can explain with a certain degree of certainty (and in some cases with 100% accuracy) a lot of the phenomens happening in the universe.

This is something most people will never understand but Quantic theory is basically a theory that tries to explain the behavior that wouldn't seem "natural" at least for our understanding of "natural" in the same way relativism challenge of how we perceive time and space. We are already explaining a lot of shit that don't respond to the traditional way of how we see "nature" that doesn't mean there isn't a way to test it and then replicate it and then experiment with it to arrive to a theory that explains it.

>Implying you didn't have a preconception of leaf posters when you called him a leaf
No user, it is you who doesn't know what a strawman is.

Do you mean quantum theory?

I don't deny that science is useful to explain nature. In fact, I am a PhD scientist working at an Australian university. Science has always been fascinating to me.

However, I don't believe that science is capable of explaining everything, and I pity anyone who believes it can, because they will ultimately be disappointed.

>thinks that strawman is the same as genetic fallacy
keep digging user, maybe you'll find some interesting fossils

Lol
Try bald eagle

Amazing

At least you're admitting to yet another fallacy. Good enough for me.

Oh yeah sorry. What is your specialty? I am a theoretic physics at the UBA, I truly believe there is a unifying theory that can and will basically unifies all the fields of study in physics, how and when I don't have a clue when but the community is working on it and has been working on it since a long time and while most of the attempts are bust eventually we will reach a point were we can explain it. Because that is the nature of our universe, causality.

...

>god's creation is full of patterns and internal logic which makes sense since there's a common designer
>but i don't know anything about it
>i just know god did it

>he thinks this explains OP's pic

Convergent evolution is the theory that everything eventually evolves into similar forms to adapt to similar environments.
So the idea would be like how penguins are birds, but evolved into similar forms as seals, because of their similar environment.
Divergent is the theory of common anscestry causing similar traits.
But scorpions are very very unrelated to lobsters, so a common ancestor would be so far back theres no guarantee it would even have claws.