Do you believe in evolution?

believe in evolution?

  • yes i do

  • no, i dont


Results are only viewable after voting.
Nope.
Post automatically merged:

Old Darwinian evolution model we're all familiar with has pretty much been debunked. As we continue to learn about how complex dna is, it's impossible to accept that we're apes that come from a long line of mutations in response to various selection pressures. Great example is the Pax6 gene, which is related to both the human, squid and fruit fly eye. Humans, squids and fruit fly have, theoretically, evolved under vastly different selection pressures, and have very different structures, yet we've somehow developed the same gene for our eyes completely by chance. Make of that what you will.

There are other examples that debunk the classical understanding of Darwinian evolution, which has, and is, pushed by conceited atheists despite its inconsistencies. No idea why folks are so desperate to cosplay as apes
 
Last edited:
whats your gripe with the embryology? Its on point scientifically and linguistically
No it fucking isnt lmao
Post automatically merged:

Nope.
Post automatically merged:

Old Darwinian evolution model we're all familiar with has pretty much been debunked. As we continue to learn about how complex dna is, it's impossible to accept that we're apes that come from a long line of mutations in response to various selection pressures. Great example is the Pax6 gene, which is related to both the human, squid and fruit fly eye. Humans, squids and fruit fly have, theoretically, evolved under vastly different selection pressures, and have very different structures, yet we've somehow developed the same gene for our eyes completely by chance. Make of that what you will.

There are other examples that debunk the classical understanding of Darwinian evolution, which has, and is, pushed by conceited atheists despite its inconsistencies. No idea why folks are so desperate to cosplay as apes
Its the other way around. Theists just wanna feel super special so they cant accept being primates and cosplay as gods images
 
No it fucking isnt lmao
Post automatically merged:


Its the other way around. Theists just wanna feel super special so they cant accept being primates and cosplay as gods images
1) don't whine like a cocky punk and give evidence

2) we just don't wanna accept theories that aren't even factually verifies and are premised upon assumptive and probabilistic models that cucks and bigots like you force it down peoole's throat without knowing jack shit about what is a fact and should be considered one.. So low the bull crap
 
1) don't whine like a cocky punk and give evidence

2) we just don't wanna accept theories that aren't even factually verifies and are premised upon assumptive and probabilistic models that cucks and bigots like you force it down peoole's throat without knowing jack shit about what is a fact and should be considered one.. So low the bull crap
Let’s assume for 2 seconds you accept that evolution is real. Does the prospect of it being real scare you? I’m not asking this in a confrontational way, I’m genuinely curious. If you found out that all your preconceived notions about life and religion are actually false, how would that make you feel?
 
Let’s assume for 2 seconds you accept that evolution is real. Does the prospect of it being real scare you? I’m not asking this in a confrontational way, I’m genuinely curious. If you found out that all your preconceived notions of life and religion are actually false, how would that make you feel?
There are no prostpects to begin with Scientist admit that there is no metric that can be used to definitively comapre and contrast ape and human genomes and they have been actively selectively choosing attributes and genes to exaggerate similarities. And assumptions like homology exist fundamental and they have to build upon it because they do not have concert evidence ANYTHING MAKE SENSE GOES DOESN’T MEAN ITS A FAACT and even the papers these lot bring up admit it


If in the future everything i believe about this becomes dud (impossible) then i wont use that as an evidence against god

And as for the theology.. It has stood the test of time without changing more than any other script has...many have tried to imitate it and change it.. But have failed..

There is no question of if.. Something divine cannot be twisted and that's a challenge in of itself
Post automatically merged:

Call me delusion only when you can prove it wrong lol ghere are no prospects before that.
 
There are no prostpects to begin with Scientist admit that there is no metric that can be used to definitively comapre and contrast ape and human genomes and they have been actively selectively choosing attributes and genes to exaggerate similarities. And assumptions like homology exist fundamental and they have to build upon it because they do not have concert evidence ANYTHING MAKE SENSE GOES DOESN’T MEAN ITS A FAACT and even the papers these lot bring up admit it


If in the future everything i believe about this becomes dud (impossible) then i wont use that as an evidence against god

And as for the theology.. It has stood the test of time without changing more than any other script has...many have tried to imitate it and change it.. But have failed..

There is no question of if.. Something divine cannot be twisted and that's a challenge in of itself
Alright, pretend for two seconds that your god is not real and you come to that realization. Does that scare you? Just be straightforward, no need to dance around the question.
 
Alright, pretend for two seconds that your god is not real and you come to that realization. Does that scare you? Just be straightforward, no need to dance around the question.
According to the logical approach i pertain existence itself to which is not a mutually exclusive to god.. If for a second there wasn't a god governing the existence

I wouldn't exist...soo

 
According to the logical approach i pertain existence itself to which is not a mutually exclusive to god.. If for a second there wasn't a god governing the existence

I wouldn't exist...soo

This is not the gotcha that you think it is. You do you, just because you use buzz words and try to talk in a convoluted manner doesn’t mean you actually making a good point. It’s like when Ben Shapiro talks fast, it’s just to cover up for the lack of actual substance in your arguments.
 
Last edited:
This is not the gotcha that you think it is. You do you,
there is no gotcha

I'm just going off of how i make sense of existence and based my case around it
Bare with me
You're telling me to undo that for the sake of understanding an impossible situation, which is impossible in of itself, and a feeling that one wouldn't be present to feel and if it was a possible scenario even then impossible to know coz even the metric to reality you ascribe to "science" itself doesn't deny god's existence.. You yourselves dunno that probability and are going off of whims.. Without realising what direct affect the existence of a being would be having on you unbeknownst to your ignorant self and mine to the affects i dunno of

So its impossible.. But surely to me a gloomy scenarios given what good that it had bought my way.
Post automatically merged:

The question itself requires the certainty of there being a god and a theology ascribed rightly to him so that there would be any chance of comprehending.. There no easy way around an empty quesitonlike this
 
1) don't whine like a cocky punk and give evidence

2) we just don't wanna accept theories that aren't even factually verifies and are premised upon assumptive and probabilistic models that cucks and bigots like you force it down peoole's throat without knowing jack shit about what is a fact and should be considered one.. So low the bull crap
Scientific theories are verified though. I shared the definition earlier in the thread.

Get over it,we are primates. Id also rather have us be alien hybrids made from annunakis, but it is what it is
Post automatically merged:

There are no prostpects to begin with Scientist admit that there is no metric that can be used to definitively comapre and contrast ape and human genomes and they have been actively selectively choosing attributes and genes to exaggerate similarities.
Us sharing most of endogenous retroviruses with chimps in the exact same spot in our genome shows pretty conclusively that we are closely related to them. There is nothing really suggesting otherwise. All attempts in this thread were easily shut down by looking at the science yall are citing.
Post automatically merged:

This is not the gotcha that you think it is. You do you, just because you use buzz words and try to talk in a convoluted manner doesn’t mean you actually making a good point. It’s like when Ben Shapiro talks fast, it’s just to cover up for the lack of actual substance in your arguments.
Yeah and ben the intellectual only brings up the same old trashy arguments for religion as well. They are stagnating af, unless they have to reinterpret nonsense from their scriptures to deflect from them being anti-reality
Post automatically merged:

there is no gotcha

I'm just going off of how i make sense of existence and based my case around it
Bare with me
You're telling me to undo that for the sake of understanding an impossible situation, which is impossible in of itself, and a feeling that one wouldn't be present to feel and if it was a possible scenario even then impossible to know coz even the metric to reality you ascribe to "science" itself doesn't deny god's existence.. You yourselves dunno that probability and are going off of whims.. Without realising what direct affect the existence of a being would be having on you unbeknownst to your ignorant self and mine to the affects i dunno of

So its impossible.. But surely to me a gloomy scenarios given what good that it had bought my way.
Post automatically merged:

The question itself requires the certainty of there being a god and a theology ascribed rightly to him so that there would be any chance of comprehending.. There no easy way around an empty quesitonlike this
Existence without god is impossible. So a being that has no evidence supporting it is necessary for existence. But we are the ones not knowing jack shit lmfao.

Cant make this shit up. Its especially funny considering you are adhering to the worst of the major religions
 
Last edited:
I don't know about you, but in every scientific congress I've been to scientific papers were presented. And I mean papers, not articles. Next time just share the papers instead of an article with no methodology nor detailed data. "Fcn retarded".
Scientific papers will indeed be presented, i never claimed the opposite. But the first impression they give is most of the time limited to the abstract and the conclusion; unless you ask them for more details. You're also still ignoring about the fact that the forum has a good scientific reputation and is, a heavy advocate of evolution. I mean, who would understand the paper better other than the author itself? you're acting as if it makes you afraid of something lmao.

It's not becoming more "likely as time passes". It will become more likely when there's an actual evidence against humans being primates. Web of life model doesn't open anything, actually, unless it's supported for complex organisms considered to share a taxon as small as a family. Quote me back when actual evidence for what you're suggesting here is found instead of making another overreaching jump.
My bad, i mean not that the alternatives model is becoming more likely, but rather that the current UCA model is becoming more and more problematic. I also said many times before which somehow never actually got into your head that there are no direct evidence that humans being primates either. Before the first formal computational statistics test conducted by Theobald, theory of evolution or Darwinian evolution to be precise is based on the hypotheses of homology; that is DNA sequence similarity, morphology similarity, molecular similarity, etc implies divergence from a common ancestor. It takes it at face-value and disregard the possibility of convergence of different possible ancestors. These critiques came even from the pioneer of American molecular evolutionists, Walter M. Fitch. This is why it remains controversial and is still an open debate as i said many times before; so far the question is which phylogenetic tree works the best for the acquired biological data (See the work of Masatoshi Nei and Theobald in my original post), not whether the phylogenetic tree exists in the first place.

Think of it this way, generate numbers between a given range in your computer. There are chances that your randomly generated numbers will resemble a certain mathematical model, whether a linear, polynomial, logarithmic, etc. Suppose you try least square method and you find that it is approximately a linear model with the R-squared value of about 0.9, which is pretty close to 1. It tells you that it is extremely likely that the model is linear, but is it really tho? Oviously no, it was just a randomly generated number in which if you wider the domain, it will most likely disrupt your predicted model to an absolutely abstract model. This is the exact same scenario as the Darwinian evolution. All these are the reason why Theobald started the first quantitative study of the Darwinian evolution, and he further says it remains controversial.

And yes, web of life model does open the possibility of human not being in the same kingdom as chimp, let alone in the same genus. The current web of life model do still say that human and chimp still evolved from the same eukaryotes, but it doesn't guarantee that. That's like the literal definition of "web". And also yes, the scientists themselves explicitly claim the possibility as well. Theobald considered the possibility of human (homo sapiens) having a different ancestor than ABE (Archae, Bacteria, Eukaryotes) [1] which later was further reviewed by other well known biologists Rob Knight and Michael Gilchrist.

As i also pointed out before many times again, there is no need to assess the likelihood of human having a different ancestor to prove that darwinian evolution directly opposes religion. What oppose religion in some way is the hypothesis of UCA/Tree of Life/Taxonomy, so adressing the issue that the hypothesis becoming more problematic is ENOUGH to say it doesn't directly oppose religion. I dont know why do you keep repeating this fallacy.

And yes, they do at fundamental levels. Completely different approaches at understanding reality, one depending on constant redefinition in order to refine its findings and the other relying on sacred words from old sources that are constantly redefined, yes, but because they keep getting cornered by the development of science itself and humankind.

Science changes to perfect itself. Religion changes to preserve itself. One evolves (pun intended) through research and falsifiability, the other relies on ad ignorantiam pre-established explanations and confirmation biases. Don't even try to compare them. The more science discovers, the less useful religion becomes because the less gaps remain unexplained for it to fill; hence why you probably don't buy the religious explanation for tons of events that were attributed to whatever deity until science gave a proper understanding of them long before you were even born (and therefore were educated with).

Everything you believe right now will eventually be debunked too just like any other magical explanation that religion provided yet is debunked today by a scientific approach. And while sadly religion will probably never disappear, surely your god, whichever you randomly believe in, will be replaced by another one day. Just like always happened.
They will never not, for it to directly and completely oppose religion, it has to first be a fact. At best, it will only address the unlikelihood of the idea proposed by religion. Even then, we ourselves still doesn't even know the true likelihood of the evolution theory as the likelihood that it fits the data best doesn't necessarily equate to the true likelihood of it being true as i explained in my analogy above. This is what also being agreed on by many biologists and as such they think this topic remains controversial.

Besides, arent Atheists also would rather choose the hypotheses that there is no creator and that we are the product of randomness despite the extremely unlikely probability lol?
 
Besides, arent Atheists also would rather choose the hypotheses that there is no creator and that we are the product of randomness despite the extremely unlikely probability lol?
Dont think there is any statistics about this. But one can distinguish between soft and hard atheism

Soft atheists can also be called agnostic atheists. Meaning there is no active belief in a deity or deities, but they dont claim that there is no/cant be a deity or deities.

Whereas hard atheists do make that claim. And for them your above statement would definitely apply.

And still: theism and acceptance of science are not mutually exclusive. Theists dont necessarily believe in creation and are religious more for spirituality
Post automatically merged:

This is not the gotcha that you think it is. You do you, just because you use buzz words and try to talk in a convoluted manner doesn’t mean you actually making a good point. It’s like when Ben Shapiro talks fast, it’s just to cover up for the lack of actual substance in your arguments.
Guess dancing around the question is what you got
 
Top