/sci/ - Science & Math

>creation ministries

Oh OP you are just trying to start something.

>>4564352

Nice argument.

/sci/ - Science & Math

-isms beyond episthemology have no place here

>>>/pol/

>>4564354

>can't refute the SCIENTIFIC arguments in pic
>still no SCIENTIFIC argument from your side

But no this isn't for /sci/, mindless brainwashed atheist detected.

>>4564356

I'll give it a shot.

>1. We don't know. There are many plausible theories.
>2. When things evolved, the ones that formed DNA through random genetic mutations lived.
>3. First of all, every living thing that has ever existed has had some genetic mutation. This is a fact. It's essential a trial an error that has happened literally quadrillions of times.
>4. This is a loaded question based on false premise. Natural selection is acknowledged by evolutionists, but both natural selection AND genetic mutation are what create evolution.
>5. Evolution.
>6. It does look like it was designed. However, this is an opinion. Opinion does not equal fact. This question is kind of retarded; it's asking like 5 questions in one.
>7. Evolution
>8. Evolution. Things that shared genetic code lived while others did not.
>9. Finding any fossil ever is an amazing occourance. Think about how many T-rexes there were in the entire world, and how few fossils we have of them.
>10. Not really, because living fossils just means they haven't changed.
>11. Well... yeah. This is more of a connotative question than an actual one. It's like asking SHOULD WE TELL KIDS ABOUT RAPE? In an argument whether or not rape exists.
>12. I don't even understand the point of this question.
>13. The wheel was a pretty cool one.
>14. Because evolution is a FACT. A hard FACT. If A is true, ad B is true, and A + B = C then C is true. Natural selection is true. Genetic mutation is true. Therefore, evolution is true.
>15. Because it's a fact.

>>4564356

The debate over evolution ultimately degenerates in a religious debate. The fact that you mentioned atheism when it has nothing to do with evolution or its validity itself, tells me you are not more than a troll

>1.
Not evolution
>2.
Not evolution
>3. Mutations are known for their destructive effects
Nope.jpeg

I'm out

The thing I hate about creationists isn't even that they believe in God. You could easily say "God did evolution." or something like that.
These guys have to fight evolution specifically because they believe the Bible is literally true.

>>4564360

Any why are you afraid of a debate about GOD until you tell me why I shouldn't believe in GOD creating all around us then I see no reason to believe you.

Burden of proof atheist.

Refute the picture without resorting to nickpicking. Classic irrationality.

Why can't science find one of these.

>>4564356
> can't refute the SCIENTIFIC arguments in pic
Pic related: It's a list of all the scientific arguments that were made in that pic.

OP, have you ever eaten a banana?

>>4564351
>implying all atheist become an atheist because of believe in evolution

>>4564364

Forgot your name you same fagging nigger.

>>4564369
My worst nightmare.

>>4564367

Not me

>>4564368

Confirmed for can't read.

>>4564369

Yes.

My problem with you guys is you won't refute the picture you will just keep appealing to authority.

Christians aren't afraid of testing their faiths, why are you Darwinists?

>>4564365
The common ancestor of ducks and crocodiles are the archosaurs. They're found.

>>4564364

0/10
Wouldn't even troll a 14-year old on /b/

You know what, fine. Shoot OP, why don't you believe in a fact?

I can answer all of these with one statement:

We were created by alien scientists.

/thread
peace out

>>4564369
Just as Man was made in God's image, so Man made banana in his.

>tldr; god is a dick

>>4564379

You're my hero

obvioustrollisobvious.jpg

If you stop taking the bait, trolls will stop fishing.

>>4564374

Even more evidence that 'evohoaxists' are everywhere. You laugh at but they do this for real, look at 'feathered dinosaurs'.

>>4564375

Then why are you still posting? Classic denial.

How can you believe in free will if it is just a theory. A guess.

>>4564378

> bargaining

A classic stage of denial.

>Why should science be restricted to 'naturalistic' causes rather than 'logic' causes?
This is an interesting question i think.

>>4564382

It pisses me off because there are people like OP in real life.

>>4564391

Stop postings pony you moron.

I offered plenty of evidence in my picture, notice its yet to be refuted atheists just get aggressive.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564378

hows is this considered bargaining?

>>4564395

I enjoy this sort of trolling, so detailed response hooray!
1. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life originates. Different matter entirely.
2. There are 4 letters in the code of DNA. These are all chemical substances that can occur naturally. There's a bit more to it, but that's the meat.
3. Natural selection explains how we get good things from mutations, mutations that have benefit stick around while those that don't don't.
4. It isn't, the people who say that natural selection explains diversity are wrong, so no one who knows biology says so. Natural selection acts on things already there, gold star to you.
5. Parts added up to other parts, pretty much everything to complex to begin at once has a pathyway to it explained. I don't have them on me, but they're there if you look.
6. Hahahaha what?
7. It worked better then by themselves, and they form ecosystems anyway, not strange that they'd form a closed circle.
8. Sexual reproduction increases diversity increases survival rates and so is selected for.
9. They're not? It doesn't remain, we've got loads of fossils, seriously I have no idea how people still say we're missing fossils.
10. What? Are you talking about colecanths and the like? They were well adapated, enviroment didn't change so they didn't have to. What doesn't make sense?
11. They're things that benefit society and individuals organisms. That's why. Also, no kids shouldn't learn philosophy in science, they should learn that in philosophy.
12. Uh, that isn't what happens? We've got pretty good models for why people act the way they do. They don't seem to contradict what we know.
13. Oh man this is such a hilarious question I can't even, there is so much, how do you manage a question so wrong?
14. We can do experiments, we do, you are crazy!
15. I really don't know why people teach creationism in schools, a bit beyond me mate.

I didn't read the whole thing, but OP's pic contains at least one valid point: Evolution is unfalsifiable.
This criticism has been brought up earlier in other threads already.

>>4564351
> 1
Paul Davies is a Christian physicist. He is not a biologist. Nothing he says about biology has weight. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Even if we were to hypothetically agree that Neo bent the Matrix to form the first living cell, evolution is still the change in genetic frequency among populations over time. The question of abiogenesis is one of chemistry, not of biology. A minimal modern cell needs over a hundred proteins. Nobody is suggesting the first cell was modern, or that it was spontaneously conjured into existence wholesale in some form of creation myth. Andrew Knoll is being honest. There are many competing theories of abiogenesis, each one of which alone would be sufficient to cause life. The question facing chemistry is not IF it can happen, but which of the many ways proven to work was the one that did. Lipid protobionts for example, require no genes at all to function and self-assemble in prebiotic conditions as a result of chemical attractions and physical pressures.

>>4564364
Since it is impossible to prove a negative the burden of proof is never on the null. The null is that there is no god. It is up to you to prove that there is a god and that he created everything and in doing so reject the null.

lern2statistics

>>4564401
>>4564397

Classic bargaining:

>God isn't real

Yes he is heres the evidence from billions world wide

>no evolution says no God

No look at my OP

>w-well i g-g-guess aliens did it.

Embrace God, you know you will soon enough.

Don't be em brassed all atheists grow up.

>>4564401
see
>>4564365
would falsify evolution.

>>4564401

Now you've done it. OP why are you ignoring the arguments you idiot.

>>4564408
Hey you fucker. I was saying that one of your points is valid. How the fuck is that bargaining?

>>4564351
> 2
DNA is not a code, it is a molecule. It has a physical shape which interacts mechanically with other chemicals. If you're going to talk about having information, you're going to have to study information theory and use its terminology. And if you're willing to do that, then yes the words on your screen ARE the result of information in the pixels. The argument from ignorance is not a disproof.

>>4564409
No, it wouldn't. Evolution would come up with an explanation. Because that's the only thing evolution does: Explaining observations. Show me where it predicts that a crocoduck is impossible. Fucking nowhere.

>>4564409

Don't try and deny his claim, evolution IS false.

>>4564395
> evidence

holy shit OP if you arn't trolling you are not even worthy to debate with.

not even the catholic church itself has such ancient believes (at least not in europe).
It's just an americunt thing.

I believe in god and in evolution.

religion asks "why", science asks "how".

>>4564415
Dollo's law of irreversibility.

>>4564414

>DNA is not a code

"DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. ... It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is ... the genetic code."

Atheists are just irrational, they cant even stick to the same position.

>>4564417

Irrational people throw trolling around while never refuting an argument. I come to a /sci/ forum clamly present my EVIDENCE and everyone hides.

So much for the myth of the rational atheist.

>>4564424
No one ever said that evolution has to be reversed in order to create a crocoduck. It could have naturally evolved from other transitional species. No contradiction in here.
And Dollo's law of irreversibility is
1. named wrongly, because it's not a law, but a hypothesis and
2. not the same as the theory of evolution, but an additional claim.

>>4564408
Please don't regurgitate religious propaganda, oh , and saying that god created us and everything is just as plausible as saying aliens exist.
Why don't you answer with something that doesn't make you sound like a religious zealot? Cramming god down peoples throats.
Why don't you give facts. This is /sci/ not /b/ or /x/ where your comments clearly belong.

>>4564415
>popper's debunked and withdrawn assertion

http://ncse.com/rncse/17/4/predictive-power-evolutionary-biology-discovery-eusociality-

>>4564428
Not that guy, but I have to say that some of his opponents are just as furious and blind zealots as him. For example >>4564358

>>4564351
> 3
The vast majority of mutations are completely neutral. You have several hundred to a thousand of them yourself. Occasionally a bad mutation pops up which causes its host problems. Such hosts don't tend to live long or propagate their genes. Even rarer is a beneficial mutation, but when those happen they tend to spread. Outright lies don't help your case. Scrambling existing DNA works best when there are extra copies of genes to use. The redundant gene doesn't add anything, but it doesn't hurt anything either, so it gets to stay. And it can mutate without harming the individual since its function is covered by the other copy. And so a certain bacteria with a new copy of a gene can insert a new nucleotide to form a new reading frame with a new genetic sequence that produces a new protein with a new function that metabolizes a new food source, and now the bacteria can eat nylon waste.

>>4564423

Typical bargaining again. I'm worried for you guys. Just think about your position its not natural to be so filled with hatred. Get back to your natural position. Accept god.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564428

>Why don't you give facts.

Irrational and blind. Terrible.

You think I'm spewing propaganda for standing up for my God, but you can't even refute a simple picture.

You must be a great intellectual.

>>4564423
And do you recognize that the discussion of religion has no place in reasonable scientific discourse or education?

I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT EVOLUTION

>>4564430
The problem with all these so called "tests" is that they don't really test predictions of the theory of evolution (because there are none). They test separate and additional hypotheses. If one of those tests were to fail, evolution itself wouldn't be debunked. We just had another new observation that was to be explained differently within the framework of evolution.

>>4564440

Its about disposing this silly myth, its been disproved for ages. see my picture. But the 'progressive' scientific community can't bear it.

Educate yourself, Christianity isn't as old as it is without being right about most things.

I'm asking for scientific arguments and getting nothing but attacks, or telling me I don't belong on /sci/ despite posting PROOF!

>>4564437
here is a much smaller picture with much less diniformation and obfuscating langage. If you refute my image I will take the time to refute yours.

>>4564351
> 4
Because creationists have the agenda of misrepresenting it that way.
Natural selection is one of three parts of evolution. The other two are mutation and inheritance. Mutation is random, and it adds new information to the gene pool. Mutation is also blind and stupid, and so most of the time this added noise simply does nothing, background static in non-coding regions. Sometimes the things it does are stupid. And sometimes it gets lucky and makes something that will help an organism survive. This is where natural selection comes in. Natural selection is NOT random. It is selective and it filters out the noise produced by mutation. Organisms survive or don't as a direct result of the functions and behaviors of their genes, and that selective process happens naturally. This behavior can result in an "arms race" where finches competing to feed the most efficiently survive or not depending on how their beaks have formed as a result of their genes.

>>4564427
It is a law.
Which is why finding something that breaks it like a crocoduck breaks evolution.
Do you not understand how laws are a part of a theory?

>>4564444
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

>>4564438
no, it HAS to be taught in school, but the right way.
e.g. that the bible is no literal work. we learned that in religious education. we learnt how to deal with these kind of text in the right context, what the author wants to tell us and the people of his time and so on.

I had relgious education and biology with evolution and it never was a problem.
Noone said the other one is right or wrong. It's just another view on things.
as i stated earlier "how" and "why".

german btw don't know how other schools handles things like that.

I have a strong believe in god, but not in the katholic church and ofc. I don't take the bible literal (one has to be really uneducated to do that - not even the catholic church does it)

>>4564445

God does exist, the body of evidence says so. He is a metaphysical entity witnessed by billions.

My post contained FACTS. Yours is a statement.

Classic irrational and angry teen.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564447
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility
>Dollo's law of irreversibility (also known as Dollo's law and Dollo's principle) is a hypothesis

It is a hypothesis, not a law. You could at least read wikipedia before showing off blatant ignorance.
And did you even read my post? I already explained that Dollo's "law" is not the theory of evolution itself. Disproving it would have no effects on the validity of evolution.

>>4564441
That's a different argument. If evolution failed a test it might be modified, just as the theory of gravitation was, yet it's still called the theory of gravitation.

This naming of theories, and the naming carrying over to new theories, is problematic, but it's a different problem, a linguistic one.

>>4564452
It's more than just linguistic hairsplitting. The theory of evolution doesn't claim more than providing an explanation for the observations. It's the inherent nature of this theory to be modified in order to explain new observations.

So I'm ignorant for trusting in the majority of knowledge. OK sure, I'd much rather than a hostile group clinging to a disproved theory.

Also no actual argument from you again. Classic.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564351
> 5
They do not form at the same time. Modern cells were not conjured into being whole by Neo rewriting the Matrix. They evolved form simpler metabolisms with fewer steps, and we have seen these steps happen in citrate, nylonase, and yes even the bacterial flagellum's evolution from the Type III secretory system as described by Christian biologist Ken Miller.
Every system ever proposed to be irreducibly complex has so far been shown not to be, and if you try to press creationists on the definition of the word you'll find them switching between two contradictory answers llike a Muslim trying to argue Embryology in the Quran with PZ Meyers.

>>4564454 He is a metaphysical entity witnessed by billions.
The vast majority of the population, at one time, believed in geocentricism. The number of believers has no impact on the actuality.

>>4564454
What evidence? Is there a picture of god (burnt toast that looks like a face doesn't court)? Where is this god? What is it made of? What are its dimensions? By what process was it formed? These are simple questions.

>>4564457
then it's a misuse of the word theory. as you describe it it's not a theory.

but there is a theory, perhaps several, theories of evolution, but they are not what you are arguing against. they conform to the normal scientific method.

>>4564462
>arguments for atheism?

So you believe in dragons?

>>4564454
>He is a metaphysical entity witnessed by billions.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html

>>4564451
>wikipedia
Newtons laws are also hypotheses by the same arguments that Dollo's. Not that anywhere does it say it is not a law. Law and Hypothesis are not mutually exclusive.
Finding a crocoduck would break evolution for more reasons than that it violates Dollo's law.
Laws can be a part of a Hypothesis.

>>4564468
>>4564469

What created life?

The universe?

God did, you can deny it as much as you like but your new faith is dying faster than most of Africa. The truth can't be denied. Prove to me God doesn't exist. I'll wait.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564437

You keep refusing to answer what makes your belief in god more valid or real than belief in aliens.
I was raised with no religion whatsoever. My view on religion is purely as an outsider. You attack me and say your god is this and that and that you believe in him and that i will too, yet you fail to explain what makes god more real than said aliens. Is it because you and countless eejits believe in god? So if i can convince several million people to believe in Elvis as the one true god, does that make him just as powerful as your god?
Please stop hitting people in the face with your virtual bible. Thanks.

>>4564470
Wrong. The "theory" of evolution is a misuse of the word "theory", because a scientific theory has to be falsifiable and has to make testable predictions.

>>4564472

I believe God could create dragons.

In the same way you 'believe' dinosaurs became birds by somehow growing flight capable wings.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564457
you are arguing against a use of the word "evolution" rather like the use of the word "physics".

physics modifies itself in the light of new observations.

>>4564476
>Prove to me God doesn't exist.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

I can do this all day.

>>4564351
> 6
The knowledge that something is designed stems from your previous experience with a designer, not from the properties of the object. It is NOT THE CASE that because you have a painting that you know there is a painter. Only knowing that there is a painting might instead lead you to imagine a painting-shitting elephant, or Neo recoding the Matrix. Rather it is because we ALREADY know BEFOREHAND that painters exist, and that they produce paintings, and that we have never SEEN a painting-shitting elephant, that when we find a painting we know to attribute it to the former and not the latter. Science is limited to natural causes because it is the study of nature, which in this case means the physically real and empirically verifiable and testable universe. Get your god or a ghost or a designer down here and have him start intelligently designing things, and we'll give him credit. But you don't get to just say that a painting exists, and so there must be a painting-shitting elephant. You have to produce the elephant first. Evolutionary biology CAN produce the genes and mutations responsible for shitting out the new phenotypes.

what a let down OP I thought you were the same guy from /pol/ but you are just trainee troll

>>4564482
>says wrong. agrees with what i said.

i have no idea how to continue when that happens.

>>4564474
Are you discrediting wikipedia? As if you were better educated than an entire online encyclopedia.
And no, a crocoduck would be totally valid within evolution. If we had already observed crocoducks, they would be well explained. Your argument is just as arbitrary as taking any existing animal and saying it contradicts evolution. Pure nonsense.

>>4564491
You could admit that you were wrong.

>>4564476
It's a reasonable assumption based on the lack of evidence and the complexity of the explanation. The interior of Jupiter may be populated with Clangers and I can't directly disprove it but it's not terribly probable and there's certainly no evidence supporting the assertion.

For an absence of belief in a supreme being to be attacked new (or any) evidence would have to be presented. As it is, not only has no evidence ever been presented but many of the assertions made by believers (such as the nature of The Sun) have been systematically destroyed by those who seek the truth.

>>4564351
> 7
The most likely possibility is the one demonstrated in the lab when a predator was introduced to free-swimming algae cells. One of their mutations was to adhere to each other when they bumped, which made the aggregate too large for the predator to swallow. So we've seen multicelularity evolve too.

>>4564490

I am the same guy. Typical diversion tactic, can't argue on my point so ad hominem. Stay irrational.

Still no arguements.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564494
i can i be wrong if we agree and you are not also wrong?

as for "were". there are many anon's in here.

you are correctly arguing against a use of the word evolution, akin to the use of the words physics, to describe a theory.

>>4564494
how can i be wrong if we agree and you are not also wrong?

as for "were". there are many anon's in here.

you are correctly arguing against a use of the word evolution, akin to the use of the words physics, to describe a theory.

>>4564484
Unlike dragons, there's genetic (and morphological, if you don't believe in that evil microbiology) evidence of a past relationship between reptiles and birds.

>>4564351
> 8
Bacteria were having sex long before there were male and female genitalia. This occurred primarily by two methods. The first is a form of hermaphrodism, where they make a pillus to connect to the other cell and copy their DNA into it, so it has their genes as well. In another form one set became large and slow to be a target and the others became small and fast to seek out the target. This is the origin of sperm and egg, and the bodies of multicelluar organisms were built around that, not the other way around. Humans weren't first conjured into existence by Neo rewriting the Matrix and then sex added as an afterthought. Sexual reproduction predates the animals.

I will just leave this here.
The Drake equation states that:

N = R^{\ast} \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_{\ell} \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;

and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

>>4564486
THIS SO MUCH FUCKING THIS

>arguments for theism?
Everything needs a cause. I can't believe atheists can't figure it out.

All the atheists who attempted to explain the problems with the picture have failed.

Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

Everything needs a cause. I can't believe atheists can't figure it out.

All the atheists who attempted to explain the problems with the picture have failed.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564351
> 9
They aren't missing. They're exactly where predicted by evolution, dug up in rock layers dating to between time the two transitions were from, geographically placed between the two, and morphologically between the two forms. The Smithsonian Museum alone has several hundred thousand transitional fossil specimens. You will find more in any museum of science and natural history which you care to visit. The reason we are not buried neck-deep in them in a pile as thick as every continent is that fossilization is a rare process, and this is the trade secret of paleontology which is mentioned. It isn't sufficient that an animal simply be killed to create a fossil, and not many animals die in the ways needed.

>>4564351
> 10
Because evolution is not a ladder, nor is it a sentience with a goal. It does not feel a need to tinker with a plan that works until the environment changes and the current organisms are no longer suitable. It is entirely probable that crocodilians will continue to stalk lake and river shores for as long as there are large game animals that need to drink water or ford rivers. Only genes which fail to reproduce are scrapped by natural selection.

>>4564492
Are you discrediting wikipedia? Nope.
Why do you think that Dollo's law can not be a law. Saying it is a hypothesis is not the same as saying it is not a law. You do understand that right?
>If we had already observed crocoducks
That is the point I am trying to get to in a way. We have not observed them. They do not exist and if one suddenly popped into existence then it would break Dollo's law.
This is not tricky stuff!

>>4564516

I like how you admit that the fossil records shows that evolution doesn't happen. If fossilization is rare. Why bother with it? Since it won't be accurate.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

Ok, so troll pamphlet is troll pamphlet. However, I have a question for someone more knowledgeable than me on this?
Are we really missing the amount of "transitional" fossils that OP pic claims we are? I've always assumed that we probably are, just checking to see if I'm wrong on that.
What exactly is a transitional species? Do organisms actually see brief periods of rapid change when they are evolving, "transitioning"? Or is evolution, as I've always understood it, a rather slow but constant process so that any fossil we do find is essentially a snapshot of the organism at that time. In other words, are all fossils transitional fossils?
To me, if it is well known that there are brief periods of change, and fossil formation is rare, it would make mathematical sense that we would be missing these fossils.
However, even if it's a more constant process, if fossil formation is rare it would also make sense that there would be large gaps of time for which we do not have fossils to represent. In that large gap of time, lots of change could have taken place.

Anyway, I don't know alot about biology (well probably more than 85-90% of the American public, but it's not something I've professionally studied), so what's the deal?

>>4564522

You really are stupid, you just think you can confuse me but those with faith are the ones with truly clear minds.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564530

Forgot my name

>>4564522

You really are stupid, you just think you can confuse me but those with faith are the ones with truly clear minds.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564514

>Everything needs a cause

So does God otherwise you wouldnt be being logical and just special pleading.

'I cant explain it therefore God' will always be your cross, ha.

Stay mad christfag.

>>4564529

>so troll pamphlet is troll pamphlet

BACK

TO

REDDIT

>>4564533

God is the explanation, moron. God has explained himself countless times.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564522
How do you know they don't exist? Maybe we haven't yet found them. I can only repeat what has already been said: They would NOT contradict Dollo's "law" and Dollo's "law" is not the same as the theory of evolution.
What's so hard to understand? I said it already twice ITT. Don't you read my posts before replying?

>>4564538

Do you?

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564536

ANONYMOUSE IS LEGUN LOL SUPER SEKRET CLUB XD

>>4564539
Fuck off. You weren't addressed. I'm arguing with another retard.

Why the hell are you people responding to this troll? Must be a really slow day on sci.

>>4564541

Hilarious. No seriously you are a comedic genius.

I don't fucking like redditors, they are actually irrational.

Sooooo

Fuck off to reddit.

>>4564552

>Sooooo

confirmed for child

>>4564351
> 11
It is not an "evolutionary teaching" that humans invented God. Evolution is the theory of the diversity of life, not about the origin of gods. It is however the Bible's position that humans can invent gods, as described in Exodus 34 where we are warned against doing so in the Ten Commandments.
Morality and altruism are evolutionary adaptations. Animals which cooperate in a society benefit from the cooperation, and this benefit can lead to increased reproductive success. This is plainly evident even today every time you are able to leave your child at a daycare while you go to work, rather than have them wander lost in a forest until you get back.
Intelligence is useful for anticipating the world, because a model with predictive power about how a predator is likely to react in the near future, based on previous experience with how similar encounters you've seen have played out, can contribute greatly to survival. Intelligence can also lead us to have predictive power over our own social urges, leading to social norms. For example, it is easy to see what might happen if we decided any lie, no matter how trivial, should be met with a death penalty. We can see this hurts us as a society and doesn't bode well for us individually either.
Purpose is something we impose onto the universe, not something we derive from it. We share this in common with all other tool-using animals who first desire an outcome, and then examine our environment to consider which parts of it can be arranged to produce that outcome. In doing so, we create the purpose for the things around us, up to and including ourselves and the universe.

>>4564536
Sorry, the pony picture was on the front page and took me to this thread. I don't frequent /sci/. /fit/&/k/ are my boards, should have known better before saying something like that here.
For the record, I've never been to REDDIT.

>>4564529
Anyone care to answer?

>>4564545
There are no scientists on /sci/, only trolls.

>>4564544

Again so agressive, you seem upset that you can't even prove evolution to a fellow devotee.

>>4564541
>>4564544
>>4564545
>>4564552
>>4564553
>>4564555

No arguments.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564552
>>4564536
You sure seem to know alot about Reddit...

>>4564545

I like how the only offense atheists have is ad hominem attacks

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564559
Full retard?

I don't even want to prove evolution. Why should I give a fuck about unfalsifiable beliefs?

>>4564562

I've mentioned the name, I've demonstrated no knowledge of it beyond that. Nice diversionary tactic redditor.

>>4564565

You know you can't that's why. It's been a dead theory for ages like the 'big bang' atheists realised their ship is sinking and have clung to the unscientific wreckage.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564351
> 12
It isn't. The rules of science are "Put up or shut up." and "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." However being massively ignorant of the story being told and the background doesn't make it "just so". Evolution IS flexible. In EVERY environment, natural selection favors those genes which successfully propogate into the next generation. In some environments, that is being vastly promiscuous and investing little care in your offspring. In others it is taking care of your children with the full attention of a single spouse so your child survives while others die. Evolution itself is blind and stupid -- there is no designer present to know WHY a certain gene worked, only the genes themselves still being present to continue doing whatever they were doing to get passed on.

>>4564538
A crocoduck is ... A mallard duck with the head of a crocodile.
I can safely say they do not exist in the same way that I can say vampires do not exist. If you are going atomic and say I can not prove crocoducks do not exist then you are being retarded.
I never said Dollo's Law was the same as the theory of evolution. Stop misreading what I said.

>>4564570

God is beyond the concept of a crocoduck. Every person has personal experience with God. There are without excuse.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564570
Exactly, you can't disprove and, ultimately, you have exposed the arrogance of science.

No arguments.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564570

God is beyond the concept of a crocoduck. Every person has personal experience with God. They are without excuse.

>For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

Clearly, there's an imposter here to discredit me. So from now on I'm going to use a trip.

>>4564568
Full retard again?

I never contricted your crap.

>>4564351
> 13
Every sentence on that section is on its own at least two lies.
Automobile design, airplane design, microchip design, medicine, vaccines, gene therapy, horticulture, pesticide, livestock breeding, pet breeding, genealogy, robotics, ecology, biology. All of these are advanced by evolutionary theory. None of the listed fields progress "despite" or "without" evolutionary theory.

>>4564578

Nice ad homenim.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564567
I can't believe you're taking that so seriously. Once again, I've never been to Reddit. Anyway, I've finished my oats and I'm off to the gym. Next time I post of /sci/ I'll remember to use my best English. I guess that's what happens when you don't lurk, but I was just dropping in for the thread.

>>4564570
>then you are being retarded

Strong argument, my friend. Congratulations. I'm gonna use it in my next math assignment to prove a theorem.

>>4564577

No, you're the one who's trying to discredit me. Stop with the imposter shit please.

I love how atheists love to imposter me. It proves they're pathetic,

>>4564579

So much effort but no disproof worth a damn. You really are wasting your time, go to work at McDonalds, it's appropriate for someone of your low low low intellect.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

What I don't understand is with all the evidence of the great flood it isn't taught in class

>>4564587

No, no, no, you're the one who's trying to discredit me. Just stop with the imposter shit.

I love how atheists love to imposter me and then claim that I'm the imposter. It proves they're pathetic,

>>4564590
Non sequitur. Lrn2politics.

>>4564587

I'm actually OP, but I was copying some guy on /pol/ he was admittedly a better troll than me but he stopped posting when I imitated him, sadly.

>>4564591

Now, you're just mocking me. You copied my exact sentence in an appeal to ridicule.

Clearly you have given yourself away as a deep cover liberal/atheist.

>>4564590
Educators are so scared of church hating atheists that they cave to their hollow requests. These are the kind of people who sue for children singing Christmas carols in a school.

>>4564351
> 14
It is not true that you cannot do experiments or observe what has happened in the past. The entire field of forensics is based on it, as is paleontology which you tried to cite as evidence in your favor earlier in this very questionnaire. Events which happened in the past leave evidence, and the evidence can be observed and tested. We know that giant birds existed in the past because we have their preserved bodies. We know that earlier still, a creature much like them but slightly less birdlike existed, because we have its remains. And so on. We can also make predictions about the future, as with the long-term citrate experiment. And we can predict that in a few years you will need a booster shot for your vaccinations, because the virus will have evolved beyond the limits of the immunity you have to your previous exposure to the strain from several years ago. We can also predict where to look for transitional species such as tiktaalik, which tell us what shape it should be, where it should be geographically, and what age of rock we should dig in. And then we find it there. Evolution has been observed while it's happening.

>>4564593
You are not a troll at all. Learn to troll properly, newfag. Trolling is moar than "hurr durr you replied to my thread, u mad?".

>>4564595
No, you're mocking me. Clearly you thought you'd jump the gun and make impostorial accusaitons first.

You've given yourself away and you couldn't be more clear.

>>4564597
Just stop it, aspie. Not only you are replying to a fucking obvious wannabe troll, but also no one is gonna read all that tl;dr bullshit.

>>4564599

Then why did you previously used an appeal to ridicule attacking me? You copied the exact same sentence I used in an attempt to mock me.

Nice attempt at saving your deep cover atheist/liberal ass. It ain't going to work.

>>4564583
You should go with the I can not prove vampires, crocoducks, Russells teapot, are not real arguments.
When someone is going down the Russells teapot path then they are being pig headed retarded, and attempting to blow all arguments aside so that they can claim some sort of victory without making any real sense.

>>4564602

No, you preemptively copied me. You're 'exposure' only exposes yourself and it isn't working.

>>4564351
> 15
Because creationists have undue corruptive political influence, a vested interest in keeping the public ill-informed enough to live up to the endearing terms of "sheep" and "flock", and the tax-exemption and funding to make it happen.
Evolution is not a religion. It is the fact of differential reproductive success, the fact of gene expression in producing that success, the fact of genetic frequency change in a population, the fact of inheritance, and the fact of speciation. The theory of evolution is that these facts explain the diversity of life by mutation and natural selection, and that theory has withstood every empirical test and observation perfectly. That makes it science, and not a religion.

>>4564598

>newfag

Subtle man, subtle.

Besides epic troll anon how can this thread be subtle?

>>4564612

You can't even reply to the right post. Only an atheist can be this retarded.

>>4564606
>here's my opinion
>it are fact
>if you disagree, you are retarded
>this is my only argument
>am I smart now?

>>4564611
You failed. Your "trolling" skillz suck.

>>4564616
Once last chance, stop imposting me.

>>4564622

>>>/reddit/

Go back to Reddit, deep cover atheist/liberal. It ain't going to work. You're already going to hell. Why waste your precious time trolling? This is your only life where you won't be in agonizing pain.

>>4564620

You seem very upset there man, its only a failed troll afterall. No need to get so angsty.

>>4564627
You're the one going to hell. You are the troll. You are the atheist. You are the liberal. You are the one wasting your time.

YOU. ARE. THE. IMPOSTER.

>argue against evolution with science
>try to promote crazy church creation at the same time

You know, i would have been fine if you were undecided, but this is just plain retarded

Looks like the imposter is gone. Finally, we can get back on with my debate against the screaming liberal hoardes.

>>4564636
>>4564630

>>4564638
Nice attempt at meta-trolling. I'd expect nothing less devious and insidious from an atheist liberal.

>>4564640

Reported. Called the cops. Emailed moot.

Bye.

>>4564643
This is pathetic, you come in here, disrupt my discussion and then report me.

You really are a sneaky liberal atheist. It doesn't change the fact you have no arguments.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

Evolution is racist. It says white man is higher evolved than black man.

>>4564647

Yes, from the same person who used an appeal to ridicule, mocked me, and decided to impersonate me.

You're totally not the troll. /sarcasm

You're the deep cover liberal. Just admit it.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564655

You appealed to mock and ridicule me. You think that if you bang your drum louder you can somehow win. It's just not true and you can't accept that. You will go to hell for what you have done and I don't see why you'd persist in wasting your time when you're such an obvious troll who I exposed in one sentence.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564661

This will go on ad infinitum. Everyone can see that you're the troll thanks to you deciding that it was a good measure to use an appeal to ridicule.

Source: >>4564591

You made fun of my typo with the last sentence. Your appeal to ridicule won't fool anybody with an analytical and non-atheistic brain.

>>4564664
This will go on until you admit the truth that you're the troll. You made fun of me 'copying' you :
Source: >>4564591

when I was in fact just talking the truth. Your appeal and ridicule won't fool anyone, even a gullible liberal atheist, which you totally are.

>>4564668

My post was before your post where you did an appeal to ridicule. Nice attempt at trying to dig yourself out of your deep hole.

>>4564672

Exactly, you preemptively copied me and accused me of imposterism. You are the imposter and you need to admit what a deep cover liberal atheist hellbound troll you are. Do it now. Just do it and get it over with. You are so deep in a hole you are in China.

>>4564673

How typical for atheists/liberals to be racist of the Chinese. There are now more Asian Christians than western Christians. You're just jealous that the Chinese will have salvation. You know that you're wrong. God is within you. Leave your atheism.

>Exactly, you preemptively copied me and accused me of imposterism.

Oh wow, I guess you have no concept of time. How typical for atheists/liberals to deny time, because it's a problem for their atheism.

>arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>arguments for atheism?
None

All you need to know

>>4564682
I'd say nice try but that was a pretty pathetic try. You are doing such a bare impersonation of a true believer that it is obvious even to a mind clouded by the wretched stink of atheism.

Damngoddit, everyone here knows both of you are atheists.
Go back to /b/. You'll still get to troll, but there will be more people, and you won't disrupt anyone trying to actually learn things.

I'm not going to reply to you. I have already proven myself not to be the troll. My post came before you used an appeal to ridicule.

Fuck off, atheist. I hope you get hit by a churchvan. Go burn in hell, atheist.

>>4564688
And I'm not going to reply to you. Everyone here knows your the troll. It's probably the only truth they'll ever see. While you will burn in hell for your trolling, I don't wish it on you.

Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls. /sci/ is part of 4chan after all.

>>4564688
>>4564689
Would the both of you please stop replying to each other with replies about how you're not replying to each other? You're both so butthurt about pretending to be theists who hate atheists and don't understand evolution that you actually are becoming more retarded in real life.
And that's just terrible, because without the atheist's vast intellectual superiority to guide you, you might as well just actually BE theists.

>>4564698
>Implying they are not all OP

>>4564701

There not actually, I stopped posted a while back, then some guy got anally ravaged about the lack of finesse in my trolling. These guys are just keeping my legacy going if you will.

>mfw this thread

>>4564487
>>4564473
>>4564450

So OP has been studiously ignoring these, then...

"arguments for theism?
Many, some of which are particularly strong
arguments for atheism?
None"

Give us a few of these arguments. As stated previously: http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html