/sci/ - Science & Math

Evolution relies entirely on random chance, but Einstein said that God didn't play with dice. So who was right, the atheist Darwin or Einstein who believed in intelligent design??

Evolution relies entirely on random chance, but Einstein said that God didn't play with dice. So who was right, Darwin or Einstein?

LAWS OF SCIENCE
>LIFE CANNOT COME FROM NON LIFE
>THERE IS NOT ONE CASE OF A MAMMAL OBTAINING NEW GENETICS OUT OF THIN AIR.

Macroevolution says otherwise. Macroevolution is not science because it contradicts science. Science experiments trying to prove macroevolution and the big bang by constructing things together completely contradicts evolution.

Majority of evolutionists believe evolution is random. If it wasn't there is an intelligent designer behind it. God. By creating instances by manipulating cells and DNA, they are playing god/intelligent designer.

If evolution is true and we are nothing but cells,
>we have no free will
>everything we do is predetermined
>we are acting the way we are supposed.

I don't even need to begin to get into this. There is absolutely zero empirical evidence of evolution. Macroevolution requires more faith than God.

Evolution relies entirely on random chance, but Einstein said that God didn't play with dice. So who was right, Darwin or Einstein?

Hey /sci/, if you could something to any major scientific figure, what would you say?
I would tell Charles Darwin "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy
woman, why don't you just live quietly out in the countryside and not
torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so
much misery?"
I think the world would be better off and 6 million jews wouldn't have died.

Hey /sci/, if you could something to any major scientific figure, what would you say?
I would tell Charles Darwin "You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy
woman, why don't you just live quietly out in the countryside and not
torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so
much misery?"
I think the world would be better off and 6 million jews wouldn't have died.

Macro-evolution requires
1. That life can come from non-life which has been proven impossible
2. That there be a number of transitional forms between different kinds of animals, when so far none have been found
3. That information can be added to the genome, which has also been proven impossible, as mutations only delete information.
4. That complex organs form because of a series of mistakes.
5. That the second law of therodynamics (that things can only get less ordered over time.) be violated
>2011
>he still belies in macro-evolution

They must have one hell of a propaganda machine for so many people to be so boldly convinced that evolution is a crock of shit.

Realistically, can we hope to beat them in the long term? It seems like they'll never quit. Eventually something's got to give, and I can imagine the state compromising with them just to stop the frivolous lawsuits. That strategy is how Scientology gained tax exempt status, after all.

>>3429002
That's artificial selection, However, ring species show one species gradually becoming two and becoming genetically incompatible

Hey /sci/, I was wondering if there are actually any legitimate arguments against evolution other than tired crap like "hurr durr big bang" and "if humans came from apes how come there are still apes?"
Not arguing in support of creationism or anything like that, just wondering if there really are any "holes" in evolutionary theory.

>>2502048
I do too... I can still hope

More suicide fuel

>>2342148
>>2342137
I think they did a pretty good job covering the evolution based misconceptions. It has its own section on the page.

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys,[94] chimpanzees[95] or any other modern-day primates. Instead, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago.[96] This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages, one evolving into so-called New World monkeys and the other into Old World monkeys and apes.[97] Humans are included in the Hominidae family, which also includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Similarly, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived between 5 and 8 million years ago, evolved into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the two extant species of chimpanzee.[94]

Let the tears flow

Pic EXTREMELY related

Try not to cry after reading it..

or this!

>>1179715
>>1179715

Or this, from news.yahoo's equally retarded brother.

We should have some sort of fucking national program to teach people about evolution, although I'm sure many would sit there and go, "BLAH BLAH BLAH STOP TRYING TO CONVERT ME SATAN I'M A WARRIOR OF GOD!!"

But shit like this (see pic) is very common, even if some of them could possibly be trolling.

People need to know that, even if they don't want to accept it as truth, evolution does not necessarily contradict creationism (the concept that we evolved from monkeys and so on does). Evolution does not mean that animals evolve Pokemon style, and that species evolve over long periods of time, not that individual animals magically change over their lifestyle.

They need to understand proven experiments and the basic logic of natural selection and how it ties into evolution. etc etc.

Or we (U.S. citizens, sorry to any non-American users on here) can just wait for the older, more bitchy and retarded generations die off. Thankfully, most people I know, even the dumb ones, understand these concepts fairly well. Of course, I've only lived on the East coast and in the midwest in major cities...

At least when some of the older opposition is gone, we can maybe push for the metric system, teaching our kids multiple foreign languages from an earlier age, etc.