| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
-
Birthday feels. -
Portal Gun Antics -
only 1990s kids wil- -
Frodo Potter -
First Yolo -
Holy shit this need- -
This Week In Science -
my buddy made a new- -
Bed -
Physics or something -
True... -
Asshole Parking -
spider-man dump bel- -
Jello Watermelon -
Nigeru -
Unbeleivable -
Star Trek -
They will come... -
Amy's Baking Company -
Things Don't Always-
#154
-
darwinwasdumb (04/17/2012) [-] Evolution completely refuted with 5 arguments:
1. genetic limits- genetic limits are built into the basic types, ex, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may vary incredibly, but despite the best attempts of intelligent dog breeders, dogs are still dogs. If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why expect non intelligent natural selection to do so?
2. Cyclical change - Changes are not directional towards the development of new life forms, as macro evolutionary theory requires, they just shift back and forth within a range. Ex, Darwin's finches adapted to correlate with the weather. Larger beaks helped with harder seeds during droughts and small beaks helped when wetter weather brought smaller seeds. The proportion consistently reversed itself to match the weather,no new life forms came into existence
3. Irreducible complexity - An irreducibly complex system composed of several well-matched interactive parts that contribute to the basic function,wherein the removal of any of these parts causes the system to fail. Being that all biological molecular machines are irreducibly complex,meaning that all parts must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes,in operating order, at the same time, for it to function, therefore any intermediates would be nonfunctional
4. Molecular isolation - It has often been said the close DNA relationship between humans and apes implies an ancestral relationship. This can easily be interpreted as a common ancestor OR a common creator. After all, if every living creature were distinct biochemically, a food chain would not even exist
5. Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms - Natural selection creating NEW lifeforms is unlikely because transitional forms could not survive. Ex, if birds evolved gradually from reptiles,there would be a transition between scales and feathers, in which would not be able to survive in any habitat
1. genetic limits- genetic limits are built into the basic types, ex, dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may vary incredibly, but despite the best attempts of intelligent dog breeders, dogs are still dogs. If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why expect non intelligent natural selection to do so?
2. Cyclical change - Changes are not directional towards the development of new life forms, as macro evolutionary theory requires, they just shift back and forth within a range. Ex, Darwin's finches adapted to correlate with the weather. Larger beaks helped with harder seeds during droughts and small beaks helped when wetter weather brought smaller seeds. The proportion consistently reversed itself to match the weather,no new life forms came into existence
3. Irreducible complexity - An irreducibly complex system composed of several well-matched interactive parts that contribute to the basic function,wherein the removal of any of these parts causes the system to fail. Being that all biological molecular machines are irreducibly complex,meaning that all parts must be completely formed, in the right places, in the right sizes,in operating order, at the same time, for it to function, therefore any intermediates would be nonfunctional
4. Molecular isolation - It has often been said the close DNA relationship between humans and apes implies an ancestral relationship. This can easily be interpreted as a common ancestor OR a common creator. After all, if every living creature were distinct biochemically, a food chain would not even exist
5. Nonviablility of Transitional lifeforms - Natural selection creating NEW lifeforms is unlikely because transitional forms could not survive. Ex, if birds evolved gradually from reptiles,there would be a transition between scales and feathers, in which would not be able to survive in any habitat
#193 to #154
-
senordevin (04/17/2012) [-] 1. if natural selection doesn't call for change none will happen. Dogs are perfectly fine with being dogs and they are safe. Nothing needs to change for them
2. Same case as 1. The property of the seeds are characteristics of their survival and how the plants hav changed to their environment.
3. not many people accept it as it can't be proven, but so is the case of many thing that evolution and intelligent design argue about so we are at a stalemate on this point.
4. a food chain is just a cycle of energy. doesn't matter how. so cannibalism could be part of it as longs as energy gets moved around
5.how could scales AND feathers not survive in any habitat whatsoever? unless an experiment were conducted you would not know, just a blind guess
2. Same case as 1. The property of the seeds are characteristics of their survival and how the plants hav changed to their environment.
3. not many people accept it as it can't be proven, but so is the case of many thing that evolution and intelligent design argue about so we are at a stalemate on this point.
4. a food chain is just a cycle of energy. doesn't matter how. so cannibalism could be part of it as longs as energy gets moved around
5.how could scales AND feathers not survive in any habitat whatsoever? unless an experiment were conducted you would not know, just a blind guess
#197 to #193
-
darwinwasdumb (04/17/2012) [-] 1. you absolutely no idea what you're talking about. look up dog breeding. changes do occur up until a certain point. then they stop.
2. the OBSERVABLE changes were not significant enough to provide evidence for evolution. that was my point.
3. you didn't respond to the argument at all.
4. that doesnt have anything to do with what i was saying.
5. the burden of proof is on you to prove that the animal could survive with both feathers and scales. you're saying "prove it couldnt survive hurrr durr"
You have completely failed at debunking my arguments. Please educate yourself.
2. the OBSERVABLE changes were not significant enough to provide evidence for evolution. that was my point.
3. you didn't respond to the argument at all.
4. that doesnt have anything to do with what i was saying.
5. the burden of proof is on you to prove that the animal could survive with both feathers and scales. you're saying "prove it couldnt survive hurrr durr"
You have completely failed at debunking my arguments. Please educate yourself.
#201 to #197
-
senordevin (04/17/2012) [-] well you can't prove any of these things you are stating. Go ahead. Make me look like an idiot by bringing proof that you are right and I am wrong. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you can't. Evolution and creationism are two theories that will never be proved. I can't convince you I'm right and you can't convince me you are. Not until actual proof is revealed
#202 to #201
-
N. Korean citizen (04/17/2012) [-]
hey it's still me, i logged out because the site isnt letting me comment anymore.
basically what you're trying to do is declare a stalemate when you obviously couldn't support your position. the to postions are NOT equal. evolution only has pseudo science to back it up
basically what you're trying to do is declare a stalemate when you obviously couldn't support your position. the to postions are NOT equal. evolution only has pseudo science to back it up
#213 to #212
-
senordevin (04/17/2012) [-] that your way of thinking is lazy because you can't make an agreeable argument to convince me so you're sticking with, "well everyone else is doing it." People thought the earth was flat, look at dat shit now, all spherical and what not
#232 to #230
-
N. Korean citizen (04/17/2012) [-]
you see it doesn't make sense to an unbeliever, because God does not reveal himself to unbelievers. I think that one day you'll turn to God and he will show you a new way of life that's so wonderful you'll never want to return to your old lifestyle! trust me!
#184 to #154
-
firinmalazor (04/17/2012) [-] not gonna lie, I didn't understand all of that.
But what I did understand was that you are an idiot.
Regarding point 4: If every living creature were distinct biochemically, there wouldn't be a species, there would be hundreds of different animals, no two of the same species EVER.
If there's a common creator, then why do I not share 90% of my DNA with a shark? With your argument, it is insinuated that your God is lazy or unimaginative, or else he just likes to fuck with us mere mortals
But what I did understand was that you are an idiot.
Regarding point 4: If every living creature were distinct biochemically, there wouldn't be a species, there would be hundreds of different animals, no two of the same species EVER.
If there's a common creator, then why do I not share 90% of my DNA with a shark? With your argument, it is insinuated that your God is lazy or unimaginative, or else he just likes to fuck with us mere mortals
#303 to #297
-
oseansyde (04/21/2012) [-] You find me a retard because I believe in something that is in supported by evidence.
Yet you believe in a God based on faith, and I'll give you the definition of faith
Faith-belief that is not based on proof. Provided by [url deleted]
You say I'M a retard, why don't you do a little self check.
Yet you believe in a God based on faith, and I'll give you the definition of faith
Faith-belief that is not based on proof. Provided by [url deleted]
You say I'M a retard, why don't you do a little self check.
#246 to #227
-
oseansyde (04/17/2012) [-] You actually took the most ridiculous thing in my reply, acted as if that really was my argument that pork is delicious and said i failed.
You entice me with your stupidity
1)Your argument states that genetic limits cannot be broken by our scientist so why should natural selection? Because maybe, the level of intelligence of humans is pretty fucking low. So fucking low that even the smartest of us are still considered in the grand scheme of things stupid. So no just because "we can't do it" doesn't make it fucking impossible. You talk like the human race is some great piece of shit, well FYI its fucking not.
2) Cyclical change only proves how we are still monkeys
3) Ok so the intermediates that had this small change which worked with their biological system perfectly and that is why they survived.
4) It seems you try to credit god for the links between apes and human, that's god of the gaps so shame on you. That's like saying science explains god. Its like trying to explain how god works. The second part I'm going to use the definition of "biochemically" and "distinct"
After all, if every living creature were (distinct)not identically (biochemically)chemically composed of a particular living system or biological substance, a food chain would not even exist. it seems you like using fancy words without knowing their meaning. Most organisms, which are organic in case you didn't know, are comprised of carbon which is a biological substance. So a food chance does exist, you actually make no argument for how evolution is wrong in this one buddy.
5) In a recent post you said "the burden of proof falls on you" .So,In your own words "the burden of proof falls on you" to prove god is real. Prove it.
You entice me with your stupidity
1)Your argument states that genetic limits cannot be broken by our scientist so why should natural selection? Because maybe, the level of intelligence of humans is pretty fucking low. So fucking low that even the smartest of us are still considered in the grand scheme of things stupid. So no just because "we can't do it" doesn't make it fucking impossible. You talk like the human race is some great piece of shit, well FYI its fucking not.
2) Cyclical change only proves how we are still monkeys
3) Ok so the intermediates that had this small change which worked with their biological system perfectly and that is why they survived.
4) It seems you try to credit god for the links between apes and human, that's god of the gaps so shame on you. That's like saying science explains god. Its like trying to explain how god works. The second part I'm going to use the definition of "biochemically" and "distinct"
After all, if every living creature were (distinct)not identically (biochemically)chemically composed of a particular living system or biological substance, a food chain would not even exist. it seems you like using fancy words without knowing their meaning. Most organisms, which are organic in case you didn't know, are comprised of carbon which is a biological substance. So a food chance does exist, you actually make no argument for how evolution is wrong in this one buddy.
5) In a recent post you said "the burden of proof falls on you" .So,In your own words "the burden of proof falls on you" to prove god is real. Prove it.
#255 to #250
-
oseansyde (04/17/2012) [-] Really? The next time you speak to god can you ask him why there is hunger, famine, war, despair, sadness, and overall shittyness in the world and why he doesn't fucking fix it? Rather talk to you and reveal things through divine intervention to YOU of all people, tell me. I'm atheist, if i live a good moral life can I still get into heaven. Because your god is merciful right?
#263 to #259
-
oseansyde (04/17/2012) [-] If god knows what I'm going to do he's omniscient and I have no free will, because that means he would know what i'm going to do before i even do it. Its like destiny, which means i would have no control over it, which means no free will
If i have free will, god is not omniscient and does not know everything.
So which is it? does God not know everything or do I have no free will?
If i have free will, god is not omniscient and does not know everything.
So which is it? does God not know everything or do I have no free will?
#159 to #154
-
N. Korean citizen (04/17/2012) [-] your retarded. just because you copy and paste some gibberish from a tea party website doesn't make you smart. I understood every word of this and it makes absolutely no sense, but maybe that's because I went to NYU and actually received an education. You don't know what you are talking about.
#186 to #159
-
N. Korean citizen (04/17/2012) [-]
The Tea Party is not the same as creationists. Guess what , the South was strongly Democrat at one point and is the bible belt where most creationists are. So there are plenty of creationist democrats, 38% to be exact. Tea party does not have a creationist platform. It's about overspending, rejection of bailouts, and over taxation.
