/sci/ - Science & Math

It is possible and it sounds plausible. You can't say more. Either they believe it or they don't.

creationtards are fucking retarded, but try this
<<<

>>4888765
saved, appreciate it. Most of the people that I argue with aren't necessarily the average/devout idiotic creationists, but they were heavily indoctrinated and haven't had their beliefs challenged in years.

>>4888783
years ago i used to bother challenging them, i used to think if i can show them that they're wrong it'd be helpful to them.

if it was a friend, i might bother trying. for random strangers, ive just stopped giving a fuck about what they believe.

and you're welcome :)

>>4888790
You didn't stop bothering. You are still spouting your inane retardation all over /sci/ every day.

>>4888791
actually i tend to avoid the religion threads now.
all my atheism images have been posted over 9000 times each, and seeing as 99.99% of /sci/ are atheists anyway, any point i would have made to the OP of a religion thread will still get made by one of you guys, so i dont need to waste my time with it.

>>4888798
You are seriously retarded. Religion threads on /sci/ are not for making points, they are for shit flinging. Your oh so edgy athiesm pictures are just as idiotic troll spam as the occasional guy who pretends to be christian.

>>4888790
yeah that mostly fits my situation. It's only somewhat recently that I "came out" as atheist and there have been a few people eager to try and pull me back into the faith. So yeah, mostly people I know/interact with often.

If your going against people who suggest that the fossil evidence was created, then you should just stop. You should just stop in general from trying to convince creationists, as the stupidity it takes to actually believe the inane dribble that comes from those people believe is not an ingredient in people who are looking to better there minds.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

In just a couple of decades these lizards have developed completely new gut structures, larger heads, harder bites. In a few centuries, these lizards will be almost unrecognizable from the parent lizards left there in 1971. That is macro evolution. Given enough time and separation, that lizard species will change enough to be considered a separate species than it's parent one.

>>4888824
noted.

>>4888804
>mfw I was about to defend EK

>>4888848

And you will get religitards that say they know there is micro evolution but they do not believe in macro evolution, and again is simply a grand display of there self induced ignorance of the topic.

If you believe in micro-evolution and time, you believe in macro-evolution. Speciation/macro-evolution, is simply the end result of micro-evolution.

You'll have better luck arguing with some aspie over economics.

>>4888867
>If you believe in micro-evolution and time, you believe in macro-evolution.

Non sequitur.

>>4888868
> Non sequitur.
Non sequitur.

If you're complaining over the semantics of 'believe' then you're just being a 12 year old. Yes, macro evolution, if a distinction can even be made, is just micro evolution over long periods. Also, as a rule, anyone that uses 'non sequitur' is a pedantic douchebag.

>>4888868

0/10

>>4888877
For sure micro-evolution implies macro-evolution. That means when we agree on micro-evolution to be real, we can expect macro-evolution to happen in the future. But it doesn't make macro-evolution the only possible explanation for how things evolved in the past.

>>4888878
Calm down, it's just logic.

>>4888884

>That means when we agree on micro-evolution to be real

But it doesn't make macro-evolution the only possible explanation for how things evolved in the past.

The entirety of that post was retarded in general.

>>4888894

>But it doesn't make macro-evolution the only possible explanation for how things evolved in the past.*

>>4888894
How can you call the truth retarded? Are you delusional?

>>4888867
I'm beginning to realize that the biggest obstacle probably isn't that these people are "ignorant" or "blind", it's that there are very real cultural implications within my local community (and I imagine many others) for being "godless". These are people who might be very willing to give up religion, but they are surrounded by neighbors and families that are god-fearing people and, if the topic of God comes up, they will be alienated or demonized for being a skeptic.

>>4888898
u are a part of the problem

>But it doesn't make macro-evolution the only possible explanation for how things evolved in the past

the only other way possible is through intervention from conscious beings, this is of course silly

>>4888909
Of course that would be ridiculously silly, but it's not impossible. It remains a matter of belief.

>>4888912
no it doesn't remain a matter of belief, it remains a matter of stupidity

if you say "its not impossible", then any speculation one may have regarding science can not be deemed impossible, which is of course silly

>>4888917
Fact is that you cannot prove it. You have evidence and you can show the evidence to others. It's up to them to decide whether that evidence is sufficient to make them believe your theory. The big problem is that there isn't more than evidence alone. There are no testable predictions.

My mom took a college course that involved actually watching bacteria evolve resistances to certain drugs, and she still thinks evolution as a whole is a sham.

>Some folks, you just can't reach.