Proof evolution doesn't exist

Originally Posted by nikarampo

You're better off not watching it, its just a desperate attempt to make us believe that science is wrong.

Hah. I don't believe everything I see anyway.

Originally Posted by nikarampo

You're better off not watching it, its just a desperate attempt to make us believe that science is wrong.

I agree that the video is completely off basis, however you act as if we have hard cold evidence that evolution is a constant.

The biggest use of the ideal that evolution is factual is that bacteria and other living organisms are our "ancestors" for having similar biological makeup at a cellular level. That can easily be explained by adaptation of a conceptual being living in a similar environment as the others. Having a single celled organism that can easily survive without the assisting of other single celled organisms gives it a much more intuitive and survivalist behavior. Having single celled organisms combine themselves with other cells to pass on separate workloads that were not a necessity before hand to simply be able to create separate tasks for a different energy source that is more finite and limited than the sources a single celled organism can survive on is a bunch of crap. That would be devolving from a self-sustaining organism to an organism that relies on other organisms to do the jobs they must properly, or else the entire cellular makeup fails. This makes no sense for cells to do this.

The only "evidence" they have been using is studying different types of algae utilizing different cellular makeup and comparing the actions of these microbes in conjunction with one another to create a comparison and call it "separate evolution process's". They also say because our DNA is so similar to certain primates we must be cousins, even though we are almost just as likely a cousin to different fruits and plants by having the same percentage of similarities in our DNA.

All current tests being done to predict the timeline of such events are also extremely flawed. They take into account the microbes current mutation factors as well as mitosis rate, and use that as the base for prediction. Then estimate that the evolution process "started" 200 million years ago for certain microbes? No, that is just stupid, irrational thinking. Geographical location, climate, nutrition sources, etc are all factors into play when it comes to the rate of mitosis and mutation, yet these are never taken into account.

Fuck evolution, adaptation is much more highly probable than evolution. Miscellaneous mutations by existing beings to come into the society and environment we see today. Somehow the beings got here, my bet is still on the influence of extra-terrestrial life influencing the microbes on the planet over evolution. And no, that does not mean sentient beings. That means microbes taking a joy ride on a meteorite/asteroid colliding into the earth spreading a different species of microbe that mutated with the natural microbes on the planet to start the adaptation process. From there it was all mutations. Much more believable then "well, it just happened that these cells decided to split jobs and work together".

Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

I agree that the video is completely off basis, however you act as if we have hard cold evidence that evolution is a constant.

The biggest use of the ideal that evolution is factual is that bacteria and other living organisms are our "ancestors" for having similar biological makeup at a cellular level. That can easily be explained by adaptation of a conceptual being living in a similar environment as the others. Having a single celled organism that can easily survive without the assisting of other single celled organisms gives it a much more intuitive and survivalist behavior. Having single celled organisms combine themselves with other cells to pass on separate workloads that were not a necessity before hand to simply be able to create separate tasks for a different energy source that is more finite and limited than the sources a single celled organism can survive on is a bunch of crap. That would be devolving from a self-sustaining organism to an organism that relies on other organisms to do the jobs they must properly, or else the entire cellular makeup fails. This makes no sense for cells to do this.

The only "evidence" they have been using is studying different types of algae utilizing different cellular makeup and comparing the actions of these microbes in conjunction with one another to create a comparison and call it "separate evolution process's". They also say because our DNA is so similar to certain primates we must be cousins, even though we are almost just as likely a cousin to different fruits and plants by having the same percentage of similarities in our DNA.

All current tests being done to predict the timeline of such events are also extremely flawed. They take into account the microbes current mutation factors as well as mitosis rate, and use that as the base for prediction. Then estimate that the evolution process "started" 200 million years ago for certain microbes? No, that is just stupid, irrational thinking. Geographical location, climate, nutrition sources, etc are all factors into play when it comes to the rate of mitosis and mutation, yet these are never taken into account.

Fuck evolution, adaptation is much more highly probable than evolution. Miscellaneous mutations by existing beings to come into the society and environment we see today. Somehow the beings got here, my bet is still on the influence of extra-terrestrial life influencing the microbes on the planet over evolution. And no, that does not mean sentient beings. That means microbes taking a joy ride on a meteorite/asteroid colliding into the earth spreading a different species of microbe that mutated with the natural microbes on the planet to start the adaptation process. From there it was all mutations. Much more believable then "well, it just happened that these cells decided to split jobs and work together".

I agree 100% with everything you say, however what I meant was that religion in general is trying to prove science wrong in every aspect that makes it less likely for god to exist. And im sure that as technology progresses we'll be able to confirm wether its adaptation, evolution or maybe something that has yet to be discovered that's responsible for what we are today.

So let me get this straight

If you kill a cow, there should grow new cows out of it when it dies or if you put it in a conserve bag
I

I can't even explain how stupid this is

According to them, the well explained evolution theory is bullshit, but a kiddo who wanted to be famous and trolled everyone saying that there is a god is a true saint.

Fuck logic

Originally Posted by nikarampo

I agree 100% with everything you say, however what I meant was that religion in general is trying to prove science wrong in every aspect that makes it less likely for god to exist. And im sure that as technology progresses we'll be able to confirm wether its adaptation, evolution or maybe something that has yet to be discovered that's responsible for what we are today.

The issue revolves around people more than their belief system. Those who believe their holy books are perfect are more susceptible to believing bullshit (IE the ones who believe the earth is only 2000 years old). The ones who understand their holy books are not completely chronological are more susceptible to rationalized thinking.

it was all in the butter

Originally Posted by TheTerroriser1

What the hell did I just watch? o________o

Devolution..

Proof on how majority of the earth's population are filled with butt licking morons.

Originally Posted by Xiolest

Proof on how majority of the earth's population are filled with butt licking morons.

video sums up the ignorance of religious people

Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

The issue revolves around people more than their belief system. Those who believe their holy books are perfect are more susceptible to believing bullshit (IE the ones who believe the earth is only 2000 years old). The ones who understand their holy books are not completely chronological are more susceptible to rationalized thinking.

Which is why its within the interest of goverments that people are religious. But it looks like people are starting to wake up.

Originally Posted by nikarampo

Which is why its within the interest of goverments that people are religious. But it looks like people are starting to wake up.

Religious no, fanatical yes. People can believe whatever they wish as long as A) they do not use it as a scapegoat for their actions and B) they do not attempt to force it upon another person.

Retardness at its best. Way to go.

Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

Religious no, fanatical yes. People can believe whatever they wish as long as A) they do not use it as a scapegoat for their actions and B) they do not attempt to force it upon another person.

But arent all religious people fanatical? In my experience at least, they are. Also, unfortunately both A and B are common among religions.. And if you think about it, they're made to make people fanatical. I know I may sound ignorant and I probably am, since im 17, but im trying my best to explain what I believe and understand on this matter.

Originally Posted by nikarampo

But arent all religious people fanatical? In my experience at least, they are. Also, unfortunately both A and B are common among religions.. And if you think about it, they're made to make people fanatical. I know I may sound ignorant and I probably am, since im 17, but im trying my best to explain what I believe and understand on this matter.

I have my own personal beliefs, however I know my scientific protocol as well as chemistry, physics, and biology. Minute encounters with morons who call themselves "religious" does not make up the entire spectrum. There are those who put their faith solely in word for word literature. Then there are those of us with our own beliefs who use analogous deciphering of their word in conjunction with modern science to continue the advancement towards the future without regress.

Take the Bible for example. Nowhere in it does it say that people should not advance towards a more prosperous future, however there are thousands who misinterpret the Bible and are convinced that you must do exactly as it says, even when speaking of the numerous stories and metaphors it offers. These are the people who believe the Earth to be a mere 2000 years old, simply because the Bible does not give a timeline for the events, and these people do not realize that it was written throughout the ages instead of in chronological order. These are fanatics.

Then you have the people who look at the Bible and say, "well this message here is not telling you to go and fight a lion, it is saying to put faith into our God and to have courage we will come out victorious", then those same people go ahead and create new technologies. Look at Hubble's apprentice, after 50 years of studying the stars and astrology as a whole he became a Christian under the circumstance that "he can not believe something greater did not create it". He had also taken various lectures in astrophysics and continues his work towards studying the universe, but now believes in a specific religion. He does not allow his faith in said religion hold back is scientific curiosity. That is a person who has a true faith in his religion, understanding he can have faith yet still continue towards scientific progress.

Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

I have my own personal beliefs, however I know my scientific protocol as well as chemistry, physics, and biology. Minute encounters with morons who call themselves "religious" does not make up the entire spectrum. There are those who put their faith solely in word for word literature. Then there are those of us with our own beliefs who use analogous deciphering of their word in conjunction with modern science to continue the advancement towards the future without regress.

Take the Bible for example. Nowhere in it does it say that people should not advance towards a more prosperous future, however there are thousands who misinterpret the Bible and are convinced that you must do exactly as it says, even when speaking of the numerous stories and metaphors it offers. These are the people who believe the Earth to be a mere 2000 years old, simply because the Bible does not give a timeline for the events, and these people do not realize that it was written throughout the ages instead of in chronological order. These are fanatics.

Then you have the people who look at the Bible and say, "well this message here is not telling you to go and fight a lion, it is saying to put faith into our God and to have courage we will come out victorious", then those same people go ahead and create new technologies. Look at Hubble's apprentice, after 50 years of studying the stars and astrology as a whole he became a Christian under the circumstance that "he can not believe something greater did not create it". He had also taken various lectures in astrophysics and continues his work towards studying the universe, but now believes in a specific religion. He does not allow his faith in said religion hold back is scientific curiosity. That is a person who has a true faith in his religion, understanding he can have faith yet still continue towards scientific progress.

Wow.. Thanks for taking the time to write all this. You are one of the few people I've seen that actually understand what they're talking about. Much appreciated.

Proof evolution doesn't exist

Post a Reply

Similar Threads

Tags for this Thread