Nocturne

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry I'm not sitting at my computer eagerly awaiting to appease the requests of my presence. I know a great deal about evolution, how else do you think I know that its bullshit? Sorry but unlike you I actually do this thing called research before I take a side. Evolution is not science, period. It is the biggest fraud ever introduced into the scientific community. There isn't a plethora of transitional species like their should be.

The fact that even a tiger and a lion can't produce fertile offspring should be all of the evidence you need to realize that evolution is bullshit but there is oh so much more. These two animals are extremely similar and according to how evolution is supposed to work, there isn't a single logical reason as to why this and so many other exceptions exist.

Then there's the problem of abiogenesis which in order for evolution to be possible, must be proven to be even remotely possible. To date there isn't a single shred of evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis(mostly due to being impossible). Evolution stands in direct defiance with the law of biogenesis which states that in fact no living thing can produce anything other than what it already is. It amazes me how many of you consider yourself scientists and can't even grasp the simple rudimentary concepts of science itself.

Why don't we see a single thing alive on this planet today that appears to be in transitional form when there should be an uncountable number of such things. Why is every animal in existence, virtually exactly how it was since recorded history itself began.

Platypus looks pretty transitional to me.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Platypus looks pretty transitional to me.

How do you explain "living fossils" like the coelacanth? Here is an example of something existing supposedly for millions of years virtually unchanged.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How do you explain "living fossils" like the coelacanth? Here is an example of something existing supposedly for millions of years virtually unchanged.

Perhaps the mother fucker is comfortable with its self and doesn't feel the need to change what it is.

Guess maybe all the older cavemen were just more of god's creations and he just got drunk towards the end while making them.

Who says that there isn't a stopping point with evolution? Perhaps some shit are better at it than others? Who is to say Aliens didn't collect a bunch of shit and just drop it off as their on little scientific experiment?

You faggots can go back and forth with extremes of science, but none of you nor most of the "experts" of the world really know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to this part of "science" because, well, no one can base it off anything but "faith" and Faith has no business in my fucking Science.

Evolution when compared to Religion is a much more solid foundation in my opinion, at least you can look at something and go... yeah, there are signs that evolution is/has happened with this.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Evolution when compared to Religion is a much more solid foundation in my opinion, at least you can look at something and go... yeah, there are signs that evolution is/has happened with this.

This is to say, based off the faith that evolution is correct (which I think it is, but not to the extremes that most people think of when they hear evolution).

Last I looked in the bible, most of that shit was already proven incorrect... by actual non-faith based science.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"faith" and Faith has no business in my fucking Science.

Science is 100% faith-based.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science is 100% faith-based.

And now you're stupid.

There are things in Science that you can take and do yourself and it will work the same as someone on the other side of the planet.

You don't need faith for that, only an experiment followed by the proof.

[Black Jesus]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And now you're stupid.

There are things in Science that you can take and do yourself and it will work the same as someone on the other side of the planet.

You don't need faith for that, only an experiment followed by the proof.

ONLY LAWS

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science is 100% faith-based.

Only in the same way that the fact you exist is 100% faith based.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And now you're stupid.

There are things in Science that you can take and do yourself and it will work the same as someone on the other side of the planet.

You don't need faith for that, only an experiment followed by the proof.

You can do it again, but after you've seen it, you go on faith that it would work like that again. Granted this is a well-founded faith, but, like anything beyond the sensation / perception wall, you can't "prove" it. Actual scientists don't use words like "proof" so loosely as lay people because they understand this concept.

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Only in the same way that the fact you exist is 100% faith based.

This is pretty much what I'm saying honestly. I'm not saying the real world isn't out there, but I am saying for sure that we've never experienced it.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can do it again, but after you've seen it, you go on faith that it would work like that again. Granted this is a well-founded faith, but, like anything beyond the sensation / perception wall, you can't "prove" it. Actual scientists don't use words like "proof" so loosely as lay people because they understand this concept.

This is pretty much what I'm saying honestly. I'm not saying the real world isn't out there, but I am saying for sure that we've never experienced it.

There are things you can prove with science. We both know this.

After you've tested something and it is shown to work time and time again, you don't go on faith that it will work the next time. Your knowledge and experience of the test is what you fall back on, not so much faith of a religious aspect. Sure you can argue that Faith is just trust... okay, you are trusting that your knowledge and experience will not fail you. Faith from a religious standpoint is completely within one's own beliefs, not from religious tests to which have been proven to work consistently. You are putting your faith/trust into something that you have no experience or test results to back.

Don't go throwing around faith so freely when it heavily relies on one's experience in one aspect and isn't needed in the other.

BTW, you can experience something and still not fully understand it. Everyone has experienced the real world and it's highly doubtful anyone ever understood it completely.