/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10584181
you cant. they already have their minds made up and there is no amount of logic that will make them think differently. the only thing you can do as far as theyre concerned is accept everything they have to say without question and essentially follow their instructions

>>10584181
Just don't bother. You'll both be happier this way. He'll die someday. Use your energy on convincing kids instead, they are mallable.

>>10584195
This, OP.
Just mock and ridicule them, it's what they deserve. All their arguments are circular logic based on unprovable assumptions. Until they see the light and stop thinking/acting like slaves, they'll continue to be slaves.

>>10584181
People only change their mind about religion when they have mystical experiences. You need to induce this and be very careful with the conditioning. I have no idea how to do it.

We already know of natural ways in which information can be added or removed from DNA. Saying that it needs to be added "intelligently" is wrong, you can just add the data randomly until it happens to be beneficial.
The evidence of macro-evolution is fossil records of animals slowly changing to an incredibly large degree over time. There's nothing micro about what happened to whales.
A third problem would be the fact that just based on the fact that animals compete and animals can have mutations in their DNA, an evolution system SHOULD happen as a result. There would have to be some special force appearing specifically preventing natural selection from happening. Not only is it intuitive that change + competition will drive improvement over time, but we have even proven it by extensively using that model for developing AI programs for the last few decades

>>10584181
Tell his dumb ass that there are dozens of more plausible (not necessarily correct) arguments that deal with the creation of the universe and intelligent design that don't necessitate him/her denying science.

>>10584181
When physicists suggested the higgs particle was real and gave mass to electrons, many scoffed because it seemed like such a far flung concept to explain a shortcoming in the standard model. But physicists pushed for it because the rest of the standard model just worked much too well, and the higgs was the neatest explanation for what the measured.

Physicists were simply very very confident it the standard model, due to the amount of experimental rigor it held up to.

Creationists believe God created everything, They believe it much more than that. They literally describe their belief as "faith". To them any evidence or observations that make creationism *appear* to be wrong simply must be yet to be explained phenomena because to them creationism MUST be true. No amount of evidence will ever shake them because they will can always doubt the evidence, but they will never doubt their "faith".

*tips fedora*

>>10584227
It's weird because most denominations now agree that evolution happens and is just directed by God in some inscrutable manner. A majority of the Old Testament is already thrown out by the New Testament, and genesis even taken in isolation is self contradictory in many places so it's a weird thing to be so firm about.

>>10584181
Ask him what the relevant difference is between "built in genetic variation" and mutations. Ask him what the relevant difference is between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." A random decision can have the same result as an intelligent decision. Since nature selects for mutations that increase survival, this can have the same effect as a design for survival.

>>10584181
Guaranteed that he is a brainlet who doesn't know the definition of "information" in this context. He just picked it up from Mr. Kent "Tax Evasion" Hovind, who I've heard claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible. When prompted that the planet is not a closed-system due to energy input from the sun... he said that energy has to be directed because excess amounts of energy makes things fall apart just like "how rocks weather, and your roof falls off from too much sunlight"...

Needless to say this reveals an embarrassing level of understanding because he doesn't realize that in the context life on earth, we are talking about chemical free energy necessary for complex biochemical evolution, NOT simple inorganic reaction kinetics nor physical factors.

>>10584181
>if I ever get into a discussion with another creationist brainlet like this how do I explain this isn't the case?
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Not a single explanation or proof of macro-evolution ITT that OP can learn from. The absolute state of /sci/

>>10584555

macro is just micro+more time

>>10584195
>you cant. they already have their minds made up and there is no amount of logic that will make them think differently. the only thing you can do as far as theyre concerned is accept everything they have to say without question and essentially follow their instructions
this

it's like trying to use logic and reason and evidence to explain to a flat earther that the earth is a sphere. If the person were using logic and evidence and reason he would not believe the earth is flat in the first place.

Christian creationists think because a talking snake told a woman to eat and apple that the creator of the universe had to impregnate a teenage virgin sandnigger so her baby could be slaughtered to pay for the apple transgression. This makes sense to them.

you think they give a fuck about dna?

>>10584561
OP here. but the argument the creationtard made was that microevolution is limited to an organisms built it genetic variation. I think there is a nugget of truth since some genes skip generations, but surely some or most microevolution is due to mutation is this is how new information is added to the genome. Most mutations are not beneficial but the ones that are help an organism to survive and pass on it's genes

I'm no biologist, just an engineering student so I have a lot to learn on this subject. Really interesting though

>>10584181
>got into a discussion with a creationist
Why do you lie on the internet?

>>10584555
There's no debate though, you're just validating negative behavior by engaging people like that. If they're not coming to you to be educated, then it's not your responsibility to teach.
If they're trying to bring the conversation up all you have to do is look them in the eye, tell them they don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and you've got no interest in discussing the subject further.

>>10584571
>Christian creationists think because a talking snake told a woman to eat and apple that the creator of the universe had to impregnate a teenage virgin sandnigger so her baby could be slaughtered to pay for the apple transgression
wtf

>>10584561
Evolving an appendix, or lungs, or blood vessels, is not the same as changing skin color, or evolving resistance to diseases. There are numerous micro changes that occur while the skin evolved over thousands or millions of years, but the micro changes for the creation of an organ are not so obvious and continuous

>>10584585
>>10584574
when you can’t into symbology and metaphor. Smart, but not smart enough

>>10584541
none of the words in the middle have a color that allows them to survive.

>>10584181
if life can spring into existence by itself, why would there be a single ancestor instead of several trillions? And why are we not witnessing the birth of new cells right now?
And how could a first cell ever exist and have enough materials to reproduce itself AND the tools to do so?

>>10584605
>when you can’t into symbology and metaphor. Smart, but not smart enough
of what is original sin symbolic? the story does not work as a metaphor. God created cancer and death because adam and eve sinned. If evolution is true our ancestors were exposed to cancer and death for millions of years before they had the intellectual ability to "sin" and thus god is just a dick and invented disease and cancer and death not because we had sinned but because he just felt like hurting innocent animals

>>10584656
who said there was a single ancestor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2xly_5Ei3U

>>10584656
>if life can spring into existence by itself, why would there be a single ancestor instead of several trillions? And why are we not witnessing the birth of new cells right now?
>And how could a first cell ever exist and have enough materials to reproduce itself AND the tools to do so?
evolution happened, we have the fossils

we win

>>10584668
Sin itself is not symbolic. The talking snake, the garden, etc. are symbolic of spiritual truths. Read Swedenborg

>>10584677
>evolution happened, we have the fossils
you cannot be literally that dumb. You can have as many fossils as you want, as long as you don't have a full lineage and a seed you have jack shit.

also who's "we"? Scientists that never even bother questioning their belief? How religious are you?

>>10584668
>>10584680
For example, it doesn’t make sense that Adam and Eve cared about their nudity. Their nudity really represents their innocence. Once they knew of sin, they wanted to cover their sins up, not only to other people, but to God. It was when humans had an idea of what good and evil were, that they discovered guilt and recognized their sin and their accountability.

>>10584181
Don’t discuss it with them. They’re dumb.

>>10584693
>as long as you don't have a full lineage

>>10584693
Fossils don’t matter, since we can sequence genomes and observe speciation today. You’re spewing archaic trash, so please stop.

>>10584711
And yet you still fail to explain why and how a bunch of random molecules would ever get together and reproduce themselves.

>>10584709
you're literally braindead, stop hurting yourself like this. Literally trillions of missing links between a potential first manifestation of life and what we see today, let alone the poor shit on your pic

>>10584656
>if life can spring into existence by itself, why would there be a single ancestor instead of several trillions?

Why wouldn’t there be only one, and how do you know there weren’t other lineages that failed?

>And why are we not witnessing the birth of new cells right now?

Earth is a very different environment now, and the precursors to life would be eaten by bacteria the moment they arose now.

>And how could a first cell ever exist and have enough materials to reproduce itself AND the tools to do so?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339755

>>10584709
>>10584723

this is what evolutards believe:
>model works well
>why would you ever reuse it???
>hahaaaa check mate theists

>>10584723
Missing links don’t matter, since we can sequence genomes today and observe speciation today.

>>10584720
Abiogenesis is a separate topic to evolution, and that question is already answered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339755

Try again. This is fun!

>>10584723
yeah because 99.99999% of all living organisms didn't fossilize. But we still have a lot in the fossil record, enough to prove evolution. Plus, like the other anon said we can see evolution in our genomes

Creationists have blind faith
Darwinists have blind faith.
Darwinists are illogical but what can they do? All they ever talk about is monkey to man which is extremely illlogical.

Yes, evolution exists. Yes, genes exist.
99% of the world population don't know the origins of the humam race.

Whenever i say aliens genetically created us for whatever reason, it seems illogical?

You need something to create something. You can't create nothing. There is always something. Our humans minds don't like that idea. There was no big bang at all. There is always something.

>>10584730
>Abiogenesis is a separate topic to evolution, and that question is already answered
evolution requires abiogenesis as a precursor

>>10584730
>>10584726
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339755
>self replicating protein
>protein just came into being magically

jesus christ

>>10584739
Nope. Evolution would occur whether life occurred naturally or was made by aliens or by some whimsical Canaanite storm god.

>>10584737
>Darwinists have blind faith

Sorry to burst your bubble but Darwinism hasn’t existed for decades. Modern evolutionary theory is quite different. No, evolution requires no faith.

>>10584742
No one claimed proteins “just came into being magically.” That’s a lie. They actually come about like this:
https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2016/09/protein-like-structures-from-the-primordial-soup.html

>>10584737
>There is always something.
Anyone who believes in Truth knows this. Truth exists necessarily, therefore non-existence is impossible, and Truth requires something to describe so that it can be Truth. It cannot merely describe itself, because it does yet know what it is. Truth creates what we call existence in all its forms, and it actualizes itself, but its last goal is to accomplish what it could not before, that is, the understanding of itself. Truth goes outside of itself and back into itself to complete existence. It demand to describe and to be perceived to fulfill its capacity. Truth...this necessary thing that creates and demands to be seen and loved...is this Truth not God?

>>10584195
Just go more absurd. Agree and amplify. Egg him on.

Same thing you do with conspiracy theorists.

If someone tells you the moon landing is fake, call him a bluepilled sheep retard for believing in the moon at all. Tell him the moon is a CGI hologram projection made by top secret US military tech.

If someone talks to you about creationism, tell him he's a dumb atheist cuck if he isn't a young earth creationism. Tell him the world is actually only 500 years old and Jesus lived in (what is today known as) 1800

Fuck trying to convince these irrational retards, it's an exhausting and pointless waste of time. You should instead have as much fun with and tool on them as hard as possible. Better yet if they don't realize you're mocking them. Fuck em.

>>10584762
God is the greatest lie invented by man. God is the greatest fiction. God is a lie.

Like i said, mainstream scientists and religious people call people retarded if i say aliens genetically created us.

>>10584779
What evidence do you have that aliens made humans?

>>10584752
Thanks for the link, very interesting read.
Including the caveat:
>The ETH scientists stress, however, that there is still an important piece of the puzzle missing from their argument in support of the “amyloid hypothesis”: Are amyloids also capable of self-replication, just like RNA molecules? This is conceivable, claim Riek and Greenwald, but there is still no experimental evidence to support it. The professor and his team are working on it.

>>10584779
Have aliens always existed?

>>10584785
>Including the caveat:”>The ETH scientists stress, however, that there is still an important piece of the puzzle missing from their argument in support of the “amyloid hypothesis”: Are amyloids also capable of self-replication, just like RNA molecules? This is conceivable, claim Riek and Greenwald, but there is still no experimental evidence to support it. The professor and his team are working on it.”

That’s great. You know why?

THE FIRST THING I LINKED IS THE RESULT OF THAT RESEARCH.

https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2016/09/protein-like-structures-from-the-primordial-soup.html

“Professor Roland Riek and his senior scientist Jason Greenwald”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339755

OH WOW LOOK WHO ALSO WORKED ON THIS LATER PAPER. OH WOW GEE

And quoted from it.

“Our recent finding that amyloid fibers arise spontaneously from amino acids under prebiotic conditions supported this hypothesis”

OH BOY NOW WHAT ARE YOU GONNA SAY

>>10584781
Are you the see it to know it type?
Would you be willing to communicate with an actual alien? Or would you never want to no matter what?

You can't expect me to BELIEVE we went from "discovering fire" to developing technology. That's bullshit and we aren't smart. The fermi paradox is bullshit.

>>10584792
>Are you the see it to know it type?

The 1952 D.C UFO sightings are good enough for me.

>Would you be willing to communicate with an actual alien?

Hell yeah, as long as it doesn’t shoot me with a ray gun or something.

>You can't expect me to BELIEVE we went from "discovering fire" to developing technology.

Why not? I’m not seeing the impossible gap between rock Knapping and fire starting and pottery.

>That's bullshit

What’s bullshit about gradually developing more advanced technology?

>and we aren't smart.

Smartest things here.

>The fermi paradox is bullshit.

Yep, since it ignores evolution entirely.

>>10584810
>Why not? I’m not seeing the impossible gap between rock Knapping and fire starting and pottery.

That's far as i go. You are retarded and keep believing or knowing what you know is the "truth"

>>10584824
>That's far as i go.

Why? You haven’t demonstrated there to be an impossible large gap between pottery and rock knapping and fire production.

>You are retarded and keep believing or knowing what you know is the "truth"

Ad hom paired with bare assertions. No argument in sight.

>>10584835
dude you are a fucking pussy. It doesn't matter if a human being that is 7'2 600 pounds. Any human being is a pussy if you believe in a creator. There is no creator and humans are a retarded species. We are so primitive compared to advanced alien spieces. Just because we have cars and computers doesn't mean shit. Most humans don't even know how they work unless you put lots of time into it.

I deprogrammed myself to the point where i couldn't eat for a week. I unlearned everything that is mainstream and took key informatiom that is universally scientific.

If i had advanced aliens genes, i would leave this retarded planet.

>>10584856
Let me know when your imaginary friend ayys land and start interviewing world leaders on TV

>>10584865
Advanced alien species already talked to our scientists and our world politicians.

Real scientists don't browse this retarded website.

>>10584874
Where’s your evidence this occurred?

>>10584181
Really simple, tell them they are forgetting about mutations.
Mutations perform random change, editing stuff without needing any external reason.

>>10584209
Brain damage is not mystical, nor is being brainwashed by religious parents as a young paddlewan

>>10584181
>got into a discussion with a creationist
pointless

>>10584778
Based

>>10584210
but anon you can't add information to DNA, that's against the rules of Entropy and damage from various radiation sources

>>10584648
Then those mutations would die out.

>>10584680
>>10584698
>Swedenborg
I don't have anything against this guy or spiritual metaphors in general, but millions of your fellow religionists do. They can't stop parroting absolute literalism and thus OP made this thread.