Do you actually believe in Evolution?

[RichmondBread]

Evolution is definitely a work of Science Fiction, imo. I know people can't wrap their heads around it, but we aren't apes.

 

[Deleted member 51576]

 

[Deleted member 51576]

Big spinning water rock created life. You don’t understand, it happened in a span of over gorillions of years

 

[Deleted member 51576]

OP, you forgot to like my first comment, nigga. I demand a like for continuity

 

[atlantean]

Big spinning water rock created life. You don’t understand, it happened in a span of over gorillions of years

View attachment 2910126

catholic church doesnt disclaim the evolution theory

 

[LancasteR]

View attachment 2910123
View attachment 2910125

 

[Klasik616]

What I don't understand how the human races dissapeared and only homo sapiens remained, no scientist has answer for this. You can't deny fossils of previous humans but that doesn't mean they could'nt be created by some intelligence. Academics usually say the monkey converted to human from evolution as the valley of the rift divided Africa and forced them to get better genetics but I don't believe the last part because no kind of monkey has ever evoluted.

 

[Sprinkles]

it’s a Jew lie lol, the earth isn’t even a planet

 

[Deleted member 51576]

catholic church doesnt disclaim the evolution theory

Can you or can you not grasp that the church’s official neutrality on this is strategical for optics? What the church teaches in reality is Genesis, which is in direct conflict with evolution theory

 

[RichmondBread]

catholic church doesnt disclaim the evolution theory

They aren't Christians

 

[RichmondBread]

What I don't understand how the human races dissapeared and only homo sapiens remained, no scientist has answer for this. You can't deny fossils of previous humans but that doesn't mean they could'nt be created by some intelligence. Academics usually say the monkey converted to human from evolution as the valley of the rift divided Africa and forced them to get better genetics but I don't believe the last part because no kind of monkey has ever evoluted.

A lot of the so called "fossil evidence" has been debunked. They have a timeline so they keep making erroneous mistakes.

 

[Deleted member 51576]

They aren't Christians

1.4 billion Catholics in the world currently and billions more when pushing back to the inception of Christianity, which is the Catholic Church. Does that mean that they’re all in hell or will be going to hell, in the case of alive Catholics? Did people only start going to heaven in the year 1500 when Protestants came into the picture?

 

[King Solomon]

It's an Edomite lie as they push the opposite of the bible even though they know the bible to be truth so they laugh at the idiots that fall for their theoretical pseudoscience that all combines together (random cataclysmic explosion from nothing to create everything 14 billion years ago, spinning basketball earth as a marble shooting through infinite space at millions of miles per hour, creating bacteria that magically turned into marine life then lizards then turd flinging monkeys then eventually humans combined with a magical force that holds an million pound tanker from flinging into Outerspace and not crushing the smallest ant. Even though none of there theories have ever been experienced, felt, examined or scientifically proven, a majority of these monkey people have blind faith in these things that the people who created them know to be false.

 

[atlantean]

View attachment 2910149
Can you or can you not grasp that the church’s official neutrality on this is strategical for optics? What the church teaches in reality is Genesis, which is in direct conflict with evolution theory

read summa theologica by st thomas, not all parts of sacred scripture r inspired in the same way, the core religious truths it teaches are inspired per se, but the historical or scientific facts it contains are inspired per accidens where they serve the religious truths

per se inspired truths are interpreted literally while per accidens facts are read more liberally. genesis teaches the earth is made in 6 days, the religious truth, which is understood in the literal sense, is that god created the world in its entire substance out of nothing, the truth is conveyed through historical facts (the 6 days and various steps of creation), you could interpret that literally but we dont have to because its not inspired per se, we can interpret it in light of genre, literary form etc

saint augustine said the bible was to be used to not fully grasp god and the creation but to understand our relationship with the creator and the church has taught that only the things that touch on the foundations of the faith must be read in the literal historical sense

to reject any scientific advancements or theory based on the fact it might contradict scared scripture (it doesn't) is low iq and shows 0 understanding of christian theology

 

[atlantean]

read summa theologica by st thomas, not all parts of sacred scripture r inspired in the same way, the core religious truths it teaches are inspired per se, but the historical or scientific facts it contains are inspired per accidens where they serve the religious truths

per se inspired truths are interpreted literally while per accidens facts are read more liberally. genesis teaches the earth is made in 6 days, the religious truth, which is understood in the literal sense, is that god created the world in its entire substance out of nothing, the truth is conveyed through historical facts (the 6 days and various steps of creation), you could interpret that literally but we dont have to because its not inspired per se, we can interpret it in light of genre, literary form etc

saint augustine said the bible was to be used to not fully grasp god and the creation but to understand our relationship with the creator and the church has taught that only the things that touch on the foundations of the faith must be read in the literal historical sense

to reject any scientific advancements or theory based on the fact it might contradict scared scripture (it doesn't) is low iq and shows 0 understanding of christian theology

tagging christian bhai @i_love_roosters

 

[ElTruecel]

They aren't Christians

False we are the true Christians protcuck

 

[Deleted member 70955]

Microevolution as in genetic mutation, natural selection, adaptation to the environment, and genetic drift? Yes.

Macroevolution as in aquatic creatures becoming earthly creatures and generating other life forms that would become what we are today? Questionable.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

View attachment 2910123
View attachment 2910125

That's not what evolution is about, humans are apes but not monkeys.

 

[Deleted member 44944]

It's true, we were all a germs 6 billion years ago, the proof is written on paper lol

 

[Deleted member 53670]

Yes I believe in evolution, including macro-evolution. Yes there’s overwhelming evidence that supports a common ancestor amongst chimpanzees and humans. And yes, you’re coping with outdated religious rhetoric.

 

[Deleted member 51576]

That's not what evolution is about, humans are apes but not monkeys.

Yes goy, chimps and humans share a common ape ancestor. You know what else we share? A common fish ancestor—tiktaalik:

Trust the science™, goy

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Yes goy, chimps and humans share a common ape ancestor. You know what else we share? A common fish ancestor—tiktaalik:

View attachment 2910216

Trust the science™, goy

No one said we have great-great-great great grandparents that were fish, you are confusing that with abiogenesis which is an explanation for evolution.

In fact, evolution would support the idea that we never had such ancestors, because they are of a totally another taxon, moron.

 

[Deleted member 51576]

No one said we have great-great-great great grandparents that were fish, you are confusing that with abiogenesis which is an explanation for evolution.

In fact, evolution would support the idea that we never had such ancestors, because they are of a totally another taxon, moron.

Nigga what? Abiogenesis is the means of explaining how the prerequisites for life came about, such as lipids, amino acids (which need to polymerize into polypeptides) RNA, monosaccharides (which need to polymerize into polysaccharides. The assembly of all of those prerequisites into a cell is what abiogenesis tries to answer. What exactly did i confuse with abiogenesis?

Evolution theory absolutely affirms the idea that we have a common fish ancestor—that being tiktaalik, just as it affirms that we have a common ape ancestor.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Nigga what? Abiogenesis is the means of explaining how the prerequisites for life came about, such as lipids, amino acids (which need to polymerize into polypeptides) RNA, monosaccharides (which need to polymerize into polysaccharides. The assembly of all of those prerequisites into a cell is what abiogenesis tries to answer.

Evolution theory absolutely affirms the idea that we have a common fish ancestor—that being tiktaalik, just as it affirms that we have a common ape ancestor.

Do you know what the definition of an ancestor/forebear is? An ancestor is anyone that we descended from via sexual reproduction, and fish never sexually reproduced to make humans because, like I said, they are in a different taxon.

Also abiogenesis doesn't "try to answer" how an assembly of inorganic material congregated together to create life but rather, that's what it is.

 

[Deleted member 51576]

No one said we have great-great-great great grandparents that were fish, you are confusing that with abiogenesis which is an explanation for evolution.

In fact, evolution would support the idea that we never had such ancestors, because they are of a totally another taxon, moron.

And in case you need help understanding how common ancestors work within taxa:

 

[Deleted member 67900]

And in case you need help understanding how common ancestors work within taxa:

View attachment 2910233

Humans and fish have a common ancestor, but fish are not our ancestors

 

[RecessedChinCel]

Microevolution as in genetic mutation, natural selection, adaptation to the environment, and genetic drift? Yes.

Macroevolution as in aquatic creatures becoming earthly creatures and generating other life forms that would become what we are today? Questionable.

“Micro” and “macro” evolution aren’t a thing. Literally made up terms by religious schizos to cope with their 12 IQ understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

[nope]

Evolution is definitely a work of Science Fiction, imo. I know people can't wrap their heads around it, but we aren't apes.

Science is more accurate than religion

 

[Deleted member 51576]

Do you know what the definition of an ancestor/forebear is? An ancestor is anyone that we descended from via sexual reproduction, and fish never sexually reproduced to make humans because, like I said, they are in a different taxon.

Also abiogenesis doesn't "try to answer" how an assembly of inorganic material congregated together to create life but rather, that's what it is.

Abiogenesis is mandated to answer for the assembly of organic (not inorganic) material. It is mandatory for any abiogenesis theory to explain the creation of the pre-requisites I mentioned previously and the assembly of them into a functional cell which served as starting point for evolution theory.


None of which has been proved by the way, just to be clear. We are not able to synthesize all pre-reqs in a prebiotic environment, let alone have them directionally polymerize and then self assemble into an actual cell.

Keep coping with muh science, goy

 

[wollet2]

View attachment 2910123
View attachment 2910125

lol the cogito synchronicity

 

[Deleted member 51576]

Humans and fish have a common ancestor, but fish are not our ancestors

Evolution theory affirms the idea that we (tetrapods) have a common fish ancestor. You are WRONG, according to evolution.


In simple and comedic terms, evolution does in fact claim that fish walked out of water to breathe. These are the finned fish that are our ancestors, goy.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Abiogenesis is mandated to answer for the assembly of organic (not inorganic) material. It is mandatory for any abiogenesis theory to explain the creation of the pre-requisites I mentioned previously and the assembly of them into a functional cell which served as starting point for evolution theory.


None of which has been proved by the way, just to be clear. We are not able to synthesize all pre-reqs in a prebiotic environment, let alone have them directionally polymerize and then self assemble into an actual cell.

Keep coping with muh science, goy

I feel like you've misinterpreted what I said as saying that we humans and fish don't have a common ancestor, I said fish did not breed humans so they aren't our ancestors.

Also science does not prove negatives, it can go as far as proving positives/disproving statements. You clearly have no familiarity with the criteria of science which is repeatability, observation and falsification.

But even with that, there is plenty of evidence that abiogenesis played a role into our evolution, and the onus would be on you to demonstrate why it is somehow "necessary" to show how it explains the prerequisites, life is an array of chemical reactions is that what you want to hear? Matter is converted to other matter all the time.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Evolution theory affirms the idea that we (tetrapods) have a common fish ancestor. You are WRONG, according to evolution.


In simple and comedic terms, evolution does in fact claim that fish walked out of water to breathe. These are the finned fish that are our ancestors, goy.

Why would fish walk out of water? Fish can't walk and likely never did "walk" on two or 4 legs. They are a separate animal that adapted to their environment by a very long and complex process of not just the things we are talking about but also microevolution for that case.

 

[danielrjsha]

how does anybody believe in evolution

 

[Deleted member 51576]

I feel like you've misinterpreted what I said as saying that we humans and fish don't have a common ancestor, I said fish did not breed humans so they aren't our ancestors.

Also science does not prove negatives, it can go as far as proving positives/disproving statements. You clearly have no familiarity with the criteria of science which is repeatability, observation and falsification.

But even with that, there is plenty of evidence that abiogenesis played a role into our evolution, and the onus would be on you to demonstrate why it is somehow "necessary" to show how it explains the prerequisites, life is an array of chemical reactions is that what you want to hear? Matter is converted to other matter all the time.

Oh so you thought i was saying fish had sex and then popped out humans? Smart goy.

To make things simple for you, goy,

abiogenesis = how did spinning water rock create life? How did we go from 0 —> 1?

Evolution = how did unicellular organism evolve to create all the life forms on earth?

You’re spouting off word salad to try to sound smart when you don’t know what you’re even saying but just trying to see what sticks. It is mandatory to explain the beginning of life itself for the same reason it’s mandatory to explain how the Big Bang happened. How did we go from nothing to something? It is the most important question.

The premise of evolution theory is pre-existing life. Abiogenesis is the scientific bedrock/framework for evolution theory—AND IT HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS. IT CANNOT BE RECREATED IN A PREBIOTIC LAB SETTING.

We cannot have polypeptides be created on their own volition in a prebiotic environment, LET ALONE A FUCKING CELL LMAO.

This nigga is pouting and whining about fish having sex

 

[n9wiff]

All opinions and theories

You choose what you want believe in but if you are so adamant on making noise in thinking you know the truth just because it fits your understanding, then you are truly the fool

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Oh so you thought i was saying fish had sex and then popped out humans? Smart goy.

To make things simple for you, goy,

abiogenesis = how did spinning water rock create life? How did we go from 0 —> 1?

Evolution = how did unicellular organism evolve to create all the life forms on earth?

You’re spouting off word salad to try to sound smart when you don’t know what you’re even saying but just trying to see what sticks. It is mandatory to explain the beginning of life itself for the same reason it’s mandatory to explain how the Big Bang happened. How did we go from nothing to something? It is the most important question.

The premise of evolution theory is pre-existing life. Abiogenesis is the scientific bedrock/framework for evolution theory—AND IT HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS. IT CANNOT BE RECREATED IN A PREBIOTIC LAB SETTING.

We cannot have polypeptides be created on their own volition in a prebiotic environment, LET ALONE A FUCKING CELL LMAO.

This nigga is pouting and whining about fish having sex

fish do have sex, otherwise we wouldnt have common ancestors the same way.

Im not sure what your contention is, that we have common ancestors? Are you asking where cells come from? Not reading paragraphs

 

[Deleted member 67900]

fish do have sex, otherwise we wouldnt have common ancestors the same way.

Im not sure what your contention is, that we have common ancestors? Are you asking where cells come from? Not reading paragraphs

You also said "oh goy we have common ancestors with apes"

We are apes, like I said. Unless you mean chimpanzees or monkeys/orangutangs then that too.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Oh so you thought i was saying fish had sex and then popped out humans? Smart goy.

To make things simple for you, goy,

abiogenesis = how did spinning water rock create life? How did we go from 0 —> 1?

Evolution = how did unicellular organism evolve to create all the life forms on earth?

You’re spouting off word salad to try to sound smart when you don’t know what you’re even saying but just trying to see what sticks. It is mandatory to explain the beginning of life itself for the same reason it’s mandatory to explain how the Big Bang happened. How did we go from nothing to something? It is the most important question.

The premise of evolution theory is pre-existing life. Abiogenesis is the scientific bedrock/framework for evolution theory—AND IT HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS. IT CANNOT BE RECREATED IN A PREBIOTIC LAB SETTING.

We cannot have polypeptides be created on their own volition in a prebiotic environment, LET ALONE A FUCKING CELL LMAO.

This nigga is pouting and whining about fish having sex

abiogenesis can be recreated, there are things called chemical reactions observed, recreated and falsified too

 

[Deleted member 67900]

abiogenesis can be recreated, there are things called chemical reactions observed, recreated and falsified too

1. Chemical Experiments: Laboratory experiments, such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment and subsequent studies, have demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids and nucleotides, can be synthesized under conditions simulating those of early Earth. These experiments provide evidence that the essential organic compounds needed for life could have formed through natural chemical processes.

 

[Deleted member 51576]

1. Chemical Experiments: Laboratory experiments, such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment and subsequent studies, have demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids and nucleotides, can be synthesized under conditions simulating those of early Earth. These experiments provide evidence that the essential organic compounds needed for life could have formed through natural chemical processes.

Cope. Miller Urey has only been able to produce a mere 5 amino acids. Read back to what I was telling you, little guy. Not only do you have to produce ALL of the amino acids, but you have to now find a way for those amino acids to polymerize and become polypeptides.

How do you go from amino acid —> cell —> protein production? Answer me goy. Show me where this has been done, all while maintaining relevant biological stereochemistry

Then show me those nucleotides linking in 5’ to 3’ direction, goy. That’s what RNA is after all, little goy. Show me the research goy. I want to see this groundbreaking work that has been done

 

[Deleted member 51576]

abiogenesis can be recreated, there are things called chemical reactions observed, recreated and falsified too

Abiogenesis theory has never been recreated in its theoretical fullness, little goy. Producing a few amino acids is not enough, cuck goy.

You need the following:

1. All amino acids and polymerization into polysaccharides

2. All nucleotides and polymerization into RNA

3. High yield, enantiomerically appropriate glucose polymerization into polysaccharides

4. Assemble all of them and make a cell aka a little factory aka the most complicated thing known to us that is not nor will it ever be possible to create in a lab setting. A SINGLE CELL! Bahahahahahaa

 

[Deleted member 51576]

1. Chemical Experiments: Laboratory experiments, such as the famous Miller-Urey experiment and subsequent studies, have demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids and nucleotides, can be synthesized under conditions simulating those of early Earth. These experiments provide evidence that the essential organic compounds needed for life could have formed through natural chemical processes.

Go ahead and input all my responses in ChatGPT, little cuck goy. I know you need all the help you can get because you’re outside of your intellectual capacity, goy.



SHAME ON THE (ATHEIST) GOYIM

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Abiogenesis theory has never been recreated in its theoretical fullness, little goy. Producing a few amino acids is not enough, cuck goy.

You need the following:

1. All amino acids and polymerization into polysaccharides

2. All nucleotides and polymerization into RNA

3. High yield, enantiomerically appropriate glucose polymerization into polysaccharides

4. Assemble all of them and make a cell aka a little factory aka the most complicated thing known to us that is not nor will it ever be possible to create in a lab setting. A SINGLE CELL! Bahahahahahaa

well there is no other better explanation for how life came about, definitely not god which is out of the window for the falsification principle, observability and repeatability.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Go ahead and input all my responses in ChatGPT, little cuck goy. I know you need all the help you can get because you’re outside of your intellectual capacity, goy.



SHAME ON THE (ATHEIST) GOYIM

I already knew all of this Im just sending you evidence that what im saying is true.

 

[Deleted member 51576]

well there is no other better explanation for how life came about, definitely not god which is out of the window for the falsification principle, observability and repeatability.

Yes, there clearly is and that better explanation is God.

I just got done systematically explaining what needs to be done in order to verify the abiogenesis hypothesis—in which evolution theory is entirely based on. And yet? Nothing according to muh science has been verified. NOTHING. It has not been observed nor has it been replicated.

Your belief of it is a religion itself! You have faith in a baseless and unproven ideology. This is why I revile you as well as every other atheist cuck. You little arrogant cucks know absolutely N O T H I NG.

 

[datboijj]

Evolution is definitely a work of Science Fiction, imo. I know people can't wrap their heads around it, but we aren't apes.

there are already changes seen in animals documented in the last 7-10 years showing animals physical changes; adapting to their changing environment
I;m going to live at least 500 years it would be boring if evolution wasn't real

 

[Deleted member 51576]

there are already changes seen in animals documented in the last 7-10 years showing animals physical changes; adapting to their changing environment
I;m going to live at least 500 years it would be boring if evolution wasn't real

Adaptative evolution/microevolution =/= macroevolution

Before you say it, I know I know, it takes 9379237738 billlion quadrillion gorillion years to see macroevolution—so, it’s totally real!

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Yes, there clearly is and that better explanation is God.

I just got done systematically explaining what needs to be done in order to verify the abiogenesis hypothesis—in which evolution theory is entirely based on. And yet? Nothing according to muh science has been verified. NOTHING. It has not been observed nor has it been replicated.

Your belief of it is a religion itself! You have faith in a baseless and unproven ideology. This is why I revile you as well as every other atheist cuck. You little arrogant cucks know absolutely N O T H I NG.

idk what god is

 

[RichmondBread]

We never originated in Africa- that's a myth. We came from the Middle East- Tigres and Euphrates river. The modern races came from the 3 sons of Noah- Ham, Japeth, and Shem.