Do you believe in evolution?

believe in evolution?

  • yes i do

  • no, i dont


Results are only viewable after voting.
usual concession by retarded self claimed scientific atheists that actually knows nothing about it
i mean, i actually read the paper instead of the article you posted lul.

also "self claimed scientific atheist"? wut? what even is a "scientific atheist" to begin with?
 
i mean, i actually read the paper instead of the article you posted lul.

also "self claimed scientific atheist"? wut? what even is a "scientific atheist" to begin with?
I also read that, difference being you're misinterpretating my point when my actual point is the fact that the UCA model is becoming more problematic, not specifically the model hypotheses proposed by the author.

You can google that what scientific athesits mean, but they share a common characteristics.

Web of Life Model: every node can have a connection to each other as opposed to the tree of life model, where branches only stem from 1 node. It doesn't guarantee eukaryotes or bacteria or archae share only one common ancestor because otherwise it would not be called the web of life.
 
You can google that what scientific athesits mean, but they share a common characteristics.
well but if i dont know what the term means, that kinda makes it obvious that i never claimed to be that. so thats just you lying about what im saying, just like you are lying about the research you are citing.
 
well but if i dont know what the term means, that kinda makes it obvious that i never claimed to be that. so thats just you lying about what im saying, just like you are lying about the research you are citing.
thats why i said "self-claimed", youre so dense lmao. You didnt explicitly claim that, but your attitude does.

Yea keep being deaf

Evolutionists: It's still an open debate and remains controversial between the web of life and tree of life model

Web of Life Model: every node can have a connection to each other as opposed to the tree of life model, where branches only stem from 1 node. It doesn't guarantee eukaryotes or bacteria or archae share only one common ancestor because otherwise it would not be called the web of life.

But sure, im the one lying. This is what people call the "self-claimed" scientific atheists, theyre actually not scientific atheists but rather ones who has beef with religion and follows atheism because it looks cooler lmao
 
This is what people call the "self-claimed" scientific atheists, theyre actually not scientific atheists but rather ones who has beef with religion and follows atheism because it looks cooler lmao
im an atheist because none of the major religions have good cases going for them. i was enthusiastic about science before i stopped being religious. anymore nonsense you wanna spout?

thats why i said "self-claimed", youre so dense lmao. You didnt explicitly claim that, but your attitude does.
"you didnt claim that, but i still say you self-claimed to be one"
 
Your bold part, i already adressed it that it is indeed currently unlikely, but it's becoming more and more likely as time passes. Youre still in denial, web of life model open that possibility.
Is there even any fundamentally objective research that proves that "Likleyhood" or are they based on assumptions?

Like the one tejas posted which took similarity and homology as principal and used a probabilistic model to reinforce UCA and concede that assumption of homology is generally the premised used conventionally


Where does this "likely hood" come from
The last time i checked the similarity was base on assumption and even numerically there isn't an objective percentage unless you pick a choose attributes
 
im an atheist because none of the major religions have good cases going for them. i was enthusiastic about science before i stopped being religious. anymore nonsense you wanna spout?


"you didnt claim that, but i still say you self-claimed to be one"
You being deaf and disingeneously misinterpretating my points is a proof youre an atheist not because of genuine reason, but because of other motive

As i said, these evolutionists, some of which are atheists said it remains controversial. They are scientific atheists because of genuine reasons, not like you and your friends that are actually going against the scientists themselves lmao.
 
You being deaf and disingeneously misinterpretating my points is a proof youre an atheist not because of genuine reason, but because of other motive

As i said, these evolutionists, some of which are atheists said it remains controversial. They are scientific atheists because of genuine reasons, not like you and your friends that are actually going against the scientists themselves lmao.
im not going against any scientists tho lmfao.

i also didnt misinterpret your points. they just suck ass.

and im still an atheist because religions dont have anything tangible backing up their stuff. on the contrary even, with there being anti-reality passages in the major religions scriptures if you read them literally, i.e. what people of said beliefs did up until science debunked the scriptures claims
Post automatically merged:

Lol what cases do you even know off.
Spouting without knowing again mate
yeah you right, there are no cases for the religions, could have phrased that better
 
Is there even any fundamentally objective research that proves that "Likleyhood" or are they based on assumptions?

Like the one tejas posted which took similarity and homology as principal and used a probabilistic model to reinforce UCA and concede that assumption of homology is generally the premised used conventionally


Where does this "likely hood" come from
The last time i checked the similarity was base on assumption and even numerically there isn't an objective percentage unless you pick a choose attributes
Before 2010s, UCA is done qualitatively based on similartiy of DNA, morphology, fetus, etc. Professor Theobald started the first quantitative study about the reliability of UCA model using computational statistics. He did find that the probability of the UCA model being true is 10^2860 more likely than the other current alternatives. But even he himself said that it remains controversial and is still an open debate even with that finding that heavily favors the UCA model.

Professor Hasegawa in his paper said that the DNA alignment used by Theobald gives a strong bias for the UCA model. Another leading evolutionists Professor Masatoshi Nei found out in his study that the tree of life is not universal for some of the chain genes. He found that the bootstrap probability of Human and Chimp sharing the same branches based on the Class II beta chain genes is 66% (<75%), and he considered it low.

In the end, there are no direct evidence that human share a common ancestry with chimp or that human evolved from a single cell organisms. A scientists in France said it himself there are no evidence of the tree of life model. As such, religion and science would never directly oppose each other.

A philosopher who is an evolutionist, Robert T. Pennock, and a biologists who is an evolutionists as well, Brian Alters, said that the sketicism of the student regarding current evolution theory is JUSTIFIED, and it doesnt directly make them creationists.

You can find all these references in my original posts, sorry im lazy to go back through pages and copy paste them xd

i also didnt misinterpret your points. they just suck ass.
You did, you either misinterpret or you disagree. If you didnt misinterpret what i said, then it means you disagree with this which is agreed by the evolutionists.

Evolutionists: It's still an open debate and remains controversial between the web of life and tree of life model

Web of Life Model: every node can have a connection to each other as opposed to the tree of life model, where branches only stem from 1 node. It doesn't guarantee eukaryotes or bacteria or archae share only one common ancestor because otherwise it would not be called the web of life.
that makes it worse lmao
 
and im still an atheist because religions dont have anything tangible backing up their stuff.
this definitely exposes your ignorance mate.. You definitely dont even know crap about theological arguments for religions
Which is shone through your eye shut dependance of assumptive and probabilistic and clearly not factual theories in science.

Big L
 
this definitely exposes your ignorance mate.. You definitely dont even know crap about theological arguments for religions
Which is shone through your eye shut dependance of assumptive and probabilistic and clearly not factual theories in science.

Big L
im pretty sure i listened to more religious apologists from different religions arguing for their religion than you did. but you know who thinks that their arguments are convincing? people who are already religious, for the most part.
 
evolutionists think humans are not animals, mammals, primates, great apes and so on? yeah no
Already adressed, and youre still deaf.

Not that they straight up thinking of that. But they do imply possibility that might not be necessarily true, especially for the web of life mode.


There is a difference between an evolutionist academic and an atheist ignoramus
Exactly lmao,
 
Top