You come from monkeys.
>>18011825So did you
>>18011825https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Triumph-Idea-Carl-Zimmer/dp/0061138401Here’s a link for you to buy the book, read it, and then reopen the thread — but this time knowing what you’re talking about.
okay and
white people come from nordic ice aryans who crashed landed on earth on a giant iceberg
>>18011835You’re even crazier than the one who started the thread haha, funny thread!
>>18011825I'm white so actually I was created by the evil wizard Yakub
I am still monkey.
talking about charles darwin means following the anglo world worder. therefore it should be illegal
>>18011825No, the evidence for evolutionism can be accounted for in a creationist worldview. Therefore, I am not forced to believe your theory.
>>18011987No, it can't. Evolution is directly observed and creationism is refuted. The evidence also does not support creationism at all. "Evolutionism" is a buzzphrase repeated by low IQ religious retards.
>>18012217You are going besides the point. The evidence used for evolutionism is not exclusive to it. All can be coped for and interpreted in a creationist world. Take common DNA for example, I can easily cope with it and say God created us similarly, you cannot disprove this idea by any science. It is all about how you interpret the same data. It is even possible for a YEC to cope and say that the earth was created old like Adam was created old, 6,000 years ago. It is that simple and none of it can be disproved by science. We use the term “evolutionist” because it is easy and everyone understands what we mean by it.
>>18012233Why do you want to deny reality and cope so much? Why do you hate truth and how reality is?https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27139421/
Me on the right
>>18011825That's not how it works
>>18012235You can’t prove it is reality, even the link you said can easily be coped for because this evidence can be used to support common and specific design.
>>18012274That's not how MCMC work. You can't actually use the data to argue for common design.
>>18011987make one (1) accurate prediction (you can't)
>>18012254Why he smiles?
>>18013166Because the atheist and theist are having a slap fight, despite wrecking his library it amuses him.
>>18011825Yeah... About that...
>>18011825YOU come from monkeys. my people were made by the Gods
>>18013286>https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17975252/#17977614
>>18013318>If I state that mutation rate = fixation rate enough times it will magically become trueYour time on this earth is running out. Tick tock. :)
>>18013329>get btfo'd>y-your going to hell trust metypical
>>18011825no,we came from primates that by their turns were only one "branch" from a whole "bush" composed of several other "branches" that are made of the so called monkeys and their ancestors
>>18013388>get btfo'dYour hallucination is noted. The furnace, the furnace! Tick tock.
>>18013286>>18013329>>18013402Nope.
>>18013329It isn't "stated" its mathematically proved. Unlike you I can actually do math and actually understand genetics.
>>18013590Those flames just got hotter. :)
>>18013805Nope. You lost.
>>18012217You fell for rhetorical framing manipulation. They defined evolution as any form of adaptation and then convinced you that evidence of small scale adaptation means evidence of large scale evolution. A common propaganda tactic to undermine the importance and uniqueness of humanity
>>18011831https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zimmer#Early_life_and_educationI will not be reading this book.
>>18011825Your mom spanks mine
evolution is 100% just word games with no basis in reality aka politics.
>>18011825Nah I come in monkeys
By this logic our mind and everything we observe in the world by our consciousness is in order to survive and reproduce not to discover the objective truth. This creates a self-defeating loop: believing in naturalistic evolution undermines the reliability of the belief-forming process itself. We have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties if they're products of blind evolution.
>>18014961>the mind is produced by evolutionary pressures>therefore the mind can't gain knowledge or truth Does not followMinds are also necessarily composite and not fundamental anyway. Minds necessarily come from mindless component parts.
The bible says God formed man from the dust of the earth, and I believe it.
>>18013609how do you mathematically prove two concepts are identical?
>>18011825No, we were created exactly thirty four minutes and seventeen seconds ago from the time stamp on this post by the current iteration of the simulation running our universe. We’re all just different bits of quantum substrate in a massive complex being operated on Markab Prime. It’s in the Bible, look it up. Imagine thinking that G.O.D. (General Operations Device) would have its programming left up to chance. Again. Read your Bible.
>>18014966You're pretty mindless yourself.
>>18015015You can't understand evolution. You're an NPC and quite stupid.
>>18012233There’s a lot of data that proves that the earth is older than six thousand years though. There’s basically no data that disproves the concept of evolution. Now, if you want to go ‘god did it’ as an answer to everything? That’s fine, but it’s also not science and it would probably be best for everyone if you guys just accepted there’s nothing scientific in your religion’s creation mythos and that’s ok because faith isn’t meant to be a rational, factual thing. That’s why it’s called faith.
>>18011835imagine being a descendant from a mythical alien race and still being more backwards than the peoples of the mediterranean
You don't understand the argument.> if naturalism and evolution are both true, human cognition evolved for survival, not truth> survival-driven truths need not to be true, only adaptive> believing in naturalistic evolution undermines the reliability of the belief-forming process itselfWhile it might be true or false we have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties if they're products of blind evolution.
>>18015232>P1: if my faculties didn't come with a certificate of reliability written by a magical fairy, I would be upset>P2: I don't want to be upset>C: my faculties came with a certificate of reliability written by a magical fairy
Magical fairy that doesn't self-refute itself makes more sense than "science" which does so.
>>18015379There is a magical djin who makes it so that I'm always right. This makes more sense than a shitty non-djin worldview which claims that there's no djin and I'm sometimes wrong.
>>18015379Science does not refute itself and evolution is a proved fact of reality. You're going to have to come to terms with this.
>>18015277"Evolution is true"Why does it only happen on earth?>UhhhWhy only a single species develops sentience?>UhhhhhhhhhWhy do complex adaptations happen if the creature wouldn't have any advantage from it for millions of years?>Uhhh because evolution always happens chud!Then why do living fossils exist that never changed in millions of years?>Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You haven't responded to my arguments.The magical "science" convinced you that there is no ethics or morality because they just simply don't exist in the observable world. You convinced yourself that science disproved the metaphysical because it can't be seen... You can't understand a simple epistemological argument because you were instructed by young age that there is not such thing as metaphysics. That what only "Science" says is true and anything else is magical fairytale slop. But you are wrong and you know it...
>>18015417Is this bait or are there really 80IQ subtard christrosities in the US like the ones I saw in movies and shit?
>>18015419>>18015388
>>18015417It doesn't only happen on earthHumans are not the only species that are sentient, all mammals are sentient as are many birds and other animalsThe majority of mutations are neutral and advantages do not necessarily take millions of years before an advantage is apparent.There is nothing about "living fossils" which contradicts evolution. By saying this you're showing you don't know what evolution is
> It doesn't only happen on earthSource?
>>18015432They just found like on Mars >"it's a heckin lie from S0YI3NTISTS"no, it's not
>>18015431You think deer are sentient? What is your definition of sentience?
> There is a magical djin who makes it so that I'm always right. This makes more sense than a shitty non-djin worldview which claims that there's no djin and I'm sometimes wrong.lol atheist reddit kind of argumentation
>>18015438Yes, deer have conscious subjective experiences.
>>18015441How do you know that?
>>18015439>>18015388
> They just found like on MarslolThey found nothing on Mars. Very similar to the "we saw/heard aliens" type of evidence. It never actually is seen.
They are keep finding life on Mars for the past 100 years.
You are not replying because you can't figure out the Captcha. Keep trying
>dyerjeet starting to have a meltyYou love to see it.
>>18015446Yes,they found life on Mars.Earth is not special. Neither are humans.
>>18015469They didn't. And you know that because you've been too afraid to respond to my posts disproving you. But I guess you show a lot of faith in your religion at least
>>18015521Yes, they did, and you didn't make any post disproving me. There is no faith required whatsoever. Evolution is a directly observed reality. I don't need faith in it in the same way I don't need faith in chemistry.
>>18015526Again, no they didn't. No matter how many times you lie about it. Show me your proof so I can tell you why you're a retard that only read a news title once and for all
>>18015541They found the fossilized remnants of life. Yes, they did. You coping and denying this won't change it.
>>18015560Yeah I assumed you meant the trace of minerals that they found and said they're potential biosignatures that require years of analysis and some retard journalist called a fossil in the news title you read. No that's not a fossil, that's not even an amino acid or a protein. They're minerals that they assume could have traces of life because of where they are geologically, in this case in what could've been a lake. It's no proof of life and absolutely no proof of there being "fossils"
>>18015582It's extremely strong evidence of life if not proof. They've studied it for years already.
>>18014991the Incas believed they were created from mud from the lake Titicaca by the hand of their god creator. It's actually a recurrent myth in different cultures
>>18015614>titty caca
>>18015592> It's extremely strong evidence of life if not proof. They've studied it for years already.How if they didn't even get it in the Earth to analyse it? It just purely because it looks like something like life, it's not analysed in a lab. We don't have alien DNA, that would have been interesting to see if it works differently than ours.
>>18015616yeah, we used to laugh a lot in history class back in school
>>18015592That's a matter of opinion. I wouldn't bet on it until a sample is actually on earth. But I'd like for you to analyze why you jumped at that as a confirmation before any facts were out. Does that mean you're holding this as a belief that you want to confirm more than a rational subject of study? I'm not trying to be condescending here I just genuinely mean that it's important to analyze our biases and reactions because we don't know what propaganda we're carrying with us until we think about it.
>>18015614Of course it is, the descendants of Adam and Eve passed down human history to each of their cultures.
>>18011835still more likely than creationism
>>18015277>atheist gives up pretending to be rational and starts seething about how he hates God insteadNews at 11
>>18015691>myth sort of lines up with Jewish BibleHooray! Our truth is universal!>myth doesn't line up or opposes Jewish BibleThe devil invented this >:(
>>18015692You're just kicking the can down the road with alien origin of life. Atheists love to shout "who created God!?" but they then post stuff like "oh aliens probably seeded life on earth" well who created the alien life? Somewhere, sometime, something came from nothing. Time and space out of nothingness, life out of non-life.
>>18015708that was pretty much the work done by Jesuits in America and Asia, they pretty much invented modern antropoly and the study of religion by comparing and classifying pagan religions in order to find an appropiate channel for evangelization or to refute their deities
>>18015625>>18015686The rovers can analyze it and the substance can only come from cells.>>18015699This didn't happen, your delusions are not realityGod is not a requirement for knowledge to be possible or reliable. Why do you guys hate the truth so much?
>>18015708Yes.
>>18015729
>>18015735Why do you hate the fact of evolution? It's a fact of reality and it's not going to stop being true.
>>18015742You can't evolve into a real woman.
>>18015733You have a low IQ
>>18015744Why do you hate the truth of evolution so much? You're a primate and you evolved from a common ancestor with other primates. Why does this fact make you so angry?
>>18015745Seethe
>>18015753Why would I seethe about you having a low IQ?
>>18015754Mad
>>18015755Why do you hate evolution? Why does it make you so angry?
>>18015761I hate all idols, lies and false gods.
>>18015763Evolution is not an idol, a lie, or a false god. It's an objective fact of reality and how life works. So this response doesn't apply.
>>18015774Evolution is clearly an idol. This falsehood occupies a supreme place in the hearts of atheists, they devote themselves to it, they oppose God's wisdom for it, it is the chief dogma of their religion, it is their excuse for their unbelief, but all shall be found out on the day of judgement.
>>18015780Evolution is a directly observed and proved fact of reality. It is a fact like chemical reactions are facts. So no, you're wrong again.Actually answer the question without lying and coping.
>>18015781Show me monkeys turning into people.
>>18015784Thats not what evolution is. Evolution is not "dogs giving birth to cats" or "monkeys transforming into men". The fact that you guys can't ever address the actual model shows you have no actual reason to disagree with it.
>>18015788Wrong, evolutionism is the doctrine that humans are the descendants of monkeys, fish, banana trees, bacteria etc etc. over millions of years, and it has not been observed.
>>18015788>you have no actual reason to disagree with itHere's the reason to disagree with it. What more could one need?
>>18015792Evolution has been observed. Evolution does not say humans come from banana trees. You are indeed a descendant of bacteria, fish, monkeys, etc. This has been proved.
>>18015794True
>>18015788>>18015792settle down both of you. Evolution is a well proven theory actually supported by several disciplines and sciences. The existence of God cannot be proven as a fact because it's an act of faith, nothing more. Actual scientists never bother to prove the existen of God because they know it cannot be proved, actual theologians never bother to discredit evolution because they know it's not part of their field of study
>>18015817Wrong. Supposed proofs of evolution rely on the presuppositions of uniformitarianism and naturalism. Meanwhile, it is conclusively disproven by the text of Genesis 1. The bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant. It has supreme authority about everything of which it speaks, and it speaks about everything. What the bible is true is true by definition, since the alternative would be for an infallible statement to be in error.
>>18015806>Evolution has been observed. Ok, show me. Show me bacteria turning into people, so I can observe it for myself.
>>18015831Evolution is a directly observed fact. It does not rely on naturalism and uniformitarianism is required to have knowledge.
>>18015836>Evolution is a directly observed factThus saith the science, Awomen
>>18015831every doctor of theology understand that the bible is pure allegory, most priest know. And not a single one of them had a crisis of faith, because you can't base your belief in God in a book alone
>>18015833That's not what evolution is. Explain what the actual model of evolution is in your own words.
>>18015842>every doctor of theology understand that the bible is pure allegory, most priest knowNo, this is what heretics say to justify their denial of God's word. The bible is not "pure allegory", you are an unbeliever.>And not a single one of them had a crisis of faith, because you can't base your belief in God in a book aloneNone of them had a crisis of faith because they actually put their faith in God instead of worldly philosophy which is not according to Christ. You are being deceived with the subtlety with which the serpent deceived Eve.
>>18015844I already declared what evolutionism is. Did you forget already? Maybe you are descended from goldfish.
>>18015840Evolution is DIRECTLY observed. It is not an opinion. You don't know what evolution is.Noah's flood has been disproved btw. It never happened.
>>18015852Show me bacteria transmuting into people. You can take as much time and as many mediatory steps as you like. Show me.
> Evolution is a directly observed and proved fact of reality.You didn't watch hundreds millions of evolution, did you? Macroevolution is trying to tell a story by looking at some rocks and bones and when something doesn't make sense you can always add more millions of years for this or that to happen.Cambrian explosion? > Well, there was probably too much oxygen so species evolved super faster than what the theory is actually based upon> Whole body plans emerge without clear transitional precursors> The predicted "smooth tree of life" looks more like "punctuated jumps"> "Transitional" fossils are often ambiguous and retroactively fitted to theory> Many "missing links" have been reclassified or remain disputedThe leap from micro to macroevolution is philosophical, not empirical. Evolution theory is more of a philosophical paradigm than a scientific theory. Its aims to explain everything and yet it doesn't manage to explain anything.Evolution is the secular creation myth.> Cosmological: Explains origins without Creator> Anthropological: Defines human nature materialistically> Soteriological: Offers "salvation" through progress> Eschatological: Points toward transhumanist future> Ethical: Grounds morality in survival rather than transcendence
>>18015849No, you did not describe what the actual model of evolution is. Try again >>18015855Evolution is not "a bacteria transmitting into a person". That is NOT what evolution is. Try again
>>18015861No, micro and macro being equivalent is a mathematical law. You don't know what evolution is.
>>18015864Evolution as fundamentally contradicts the bible, evolution as we basically reject, is the historical claim that over a long process of billions of years bacteria developed into human beings.
>>18015869Micro and macro evolution are not equivalent period because the terms do not refer to identical propositions, even if one actually necessarily implied the other they would not be equivalent. You are incredibly irrational.
>>18015846are you going to post drawings made by who knows everytime you get refuted?
>>18015872This is a more accurate description of what evolution is.Its the change in inheritance characteristics in a population over time. Or also the change in allele frequency of a population over timeThis is directly observed. It's a fact.>>18015875They are equivalent. They are just change in alleles over time.
>>18015846I believe more than you because I'm not shielding myself behind made up evidence to prove myself God is real
>>18015869> "Because I can walk up stairs one step at a time therefore I can walk to the moon"Math bro. You probably introduce yourself as a somewhat of a scientist when you meet people. Insane
>>18015888Nope, because the change in alleles is not equivalent to walking to the moon.The only difference between you and a monkey is your alleles and there is nothing about the differences that can't be bridged by change in alleles.
Check this out
>>18015887> Careers, funding, and publications depend on the evolutionary framework> Educational pipeline from elementary through PhD assumes evolution> Career advancement depends on accepting the paradigm> Dissenting papers rarely published in top journals> Scientists who express skepticism face professional consequencesYes, science bros are definitely not having any personal reasons for supporting the theory. They just simply want the "TRUTH"
>>18015906You got all this from an e-grifter who lives off donations and ad money THOUGH.
>>18015906You need to construct an enormous grand conspiracy rather than accept that you don't know how the world works and other people can have knowledge about things that you haven't studied.Have you ever even tried to study evolution, not just learned Christian talking points from creationist propaganda mills?
>>18011825Okay and
>>18015897No that would be a complete waste of my time.>>18015886This is the equivocation fallacy, since you are now conflating no less than 3 distinct definitions of the word evolution. Change in allele frequency has been observed, molecules to man has not.>>18015887You call God's word "made up evidence", and then claim you believe at all? Examine yourself.
>>18015882You desiring to be wise in the eyes of the world is not a refutation of anything.
>>18015906>Educational pipeline from elementary through PhD assumes evolutionyeah because it's a well proven theory
>>18015915>You need to construct an enormous grand conspiracy Not at all, unbelievers don't need a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Belief in evolutionism is caused by sincerely held erroneous presuppositions, not a conspiracy.> Have you ever even tried to study evolution, not just learned Christian talking points from creationist propaganda mills?Translation: have you ever tried uncritically accepting our dogma instead of questioning it?
>>18015921Change in alleles is the mechanism that produces the diversity of life. So no, there is no equivocation here>>18015927You claiming the Bible refutes evolution is not a refutation of anything
>>18015928No, because Epicureanism is the spirit of the age.
>>18015931Evolution is a directly observed fact of reality. It is a fact. It requires no erroneous presuppositions unlike your claim that the Bible is inerrant.>Translation: have you ever tried uncritically accepting our dogma instead of questioning it?No, this is not correct. You've literally never even studied evolution critically which is why you don't even understand it.
>>18015932>Change in alleles is the mechanism that produces the diversity of lifeWithin a kind>So no, there is no equivocation here"Allele frequency changes in a population" and "men are descendants of bacteria" are distinct propositions however, so it's still an equivocation.
>>18015927you could post an actual thesis from a theologist, instead of a boomer comic strip. That will get more attention
>>18015942The equivocation fallacy is not a valid argument. There is no evidence of evolution. Evolutionism is false.
>>18015944>Within a kindNope, as there is no such thing as a kind and no definition you can give that correlates to genetic data. >Allele frequency changes in a population" and "men are descendants of bacteria" are distinct propositions however, so it's still an equivocation.The second directly follows from the first.
>>18015945OKhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=LSB
>>18015947Evolution is a directly observed fact of reality. It is not an equivocation, no matter how many times you repeat this.
>>18015950Logical law is objective, so it's actually irrelevant that this hurts your feelings, it's an equivocation fallacy.>>18015948No it doesn't.
>>18015949The statements in the Bible are not evidence of themselves.
>>18015952What is evidence?
>>18015951Again, the logical law is that the second follows from the first. I'm not rejecting logic here, you areAnd yes,it does. There is no such thing as a created kind.
>>18015921>No that would be a complete waste of my time.It disproves Christian presuppositionalism
>>18015897This is simply bad.1. Assumes intelligibility, logic, and meaningful predication while attempting to undermine the preconditions for these very things. This is self-refuting. If it truly made determinacy impossible, the author couldn't make determinate claims about the document itself.2. God's essence is indeed incomprehensible but God's energies/operations are knowable. This paper doesn't understand those things:God's infinite essence (which transcends human categories)God's energies/revelation (which provide real knowledge)This distinction dissolves the supposed incompatibility - God can be both infinitely transcendent AND the ground of determinate knowledge through His energies.3. The document doesn't address why the Christian Triune God specifically solves the one-and-many problem. In TAG:> The Trinity provides the metaphysical foundation for unity and plurality> The divine Logos grounds logic and intelligibility> The personal nature of God grounds personal knowledgeWithout this Trinitarian foundation, you can't account for:> Universal laws of logic> The uniformity of nature> The reliability of cognitive faculties4. The document's use of "variable real current qualification" seems to confuse:Epistemic limitations (our changing knowledge)Ontological reality (God's unchanging nature)God's incomprehensibility doesn't mean facts about creation are indeterminate. Rather, God's stable nature grounds stable facts while allowing for our growing understanding.TRY AGAIN. WRITE ANOTHER PAPER.
>>18015965It quite literally disproves every point you're writing here.Presupps are actually retarded
>>18015957No it doesn't. I deny your assertion. Do you now have an argument?>>18015964I don't doubt I could rip it to shreds, but I also don't doubt you would ignore it and repost as spam anyways so I won't waste my time
>>18015970>No it doesn't. I deny your assertion. Do you now have an argument?Yes,it does. The only difference between your body and the body of a bacteria is the alleles, and thus the change in alleles is the change in your body vs the eukaryotic ancestor.There is no such thing as a created kind. Again, you do not and never will give a definition that correlates with genetic data.You going "nuh uh" is not an argument.
>>18015977The formation of your body* my bad
>>18015977>The only difference between your body and the body of a bacteria is the allelesNo that's grossly simplistic. There are enormous differences that can't be rectified by moving a few things around. Second, even if this was correct it wouldn't imply as a historical fact bacteria evolved into people. Btw what's "a bacteria"?>There is no such thing as a created kind. Again, you do not and never will give a definition that correlates with genetic data.What does "correlates with genetic data" mean? Why is it not sufficient that the definition is meaningful?>You going "nuh uh" is not an argument.You haven't made an argument lol, so why would I?
>>18015987>No that's grossly simplisticNo, it really isn't. The reason a cell turns into a human vs an elephant vs whatever is because of their genes. It needs to correlate with genetic data because that's what determines the species.Yes, I have made multiple arguments. I've disproved the idea of created kinds and shown that change in alleles is equivalent to universal common descent. You going "nuh uh" is not an argument.
>>18015977> The only difference between your body and the body of a bacteria is the alleles, and thus the change in alleles is the change in your body vs the eukaryotic ancestor.I legit feel sorry for you.If humans are just "bacteria with different alleles"> Why should we trust our cognitive faculties?> How can mere chemical reactions produce truth?
>>18016000This was already explained. Evolution is a fact and repeating refuted presupp isn't going to stop it being a fact
>>18015997>No, it really isn'tYeah it is lol. At this point all I need to do rhetorically is shine a spotlight on you. You lost the argument as soon as you said that.>The reason a cell turns into a human vs an elephant vs whatever is because of their genes. A single human cell is not a human being, however. >It needs to correlate with genetic data because that's what determines the species.By species, do you mean the stratum lower than a kind? And, why is it insufficient for the definition to be meaningful? It's entirely possible for a definition to be biologically meaningful without being genetic per se. Sure sounds like you're trying to give yourself an excuse to arbitrarily reject a logically cogent definition.>Yes, I have made multiple argumentsNot even one. You are an idiot.>You going "nuh uh" is not an argument.The lack of an argument does not merit an argument in response.
>>18016014No, again, you do not have a definition for kind and thus you are not entitled to use it before you give a definition. You will never be able to do so that is consistent with genetic data.And no, I already demonstrated how change in alleles renders "micro" and "macro" evolution equivalent. You going "nuh uh" is not a counter argumentYou're extremely bad at philosophy, logic, and math. You don't actually know anything about any of them.
>>18016023At this point I'm not convinced you're an adult. You think declaring yourself right is itself indisputable proof. Truly atheism is a mind virus.
>>18016005I refuted your refutation of presupp. You still don't have any arguments for the things asked. Your answer is to throw a paper which is full of wholes.
>>18016025I'm in my early 30's. I'm substantially more intelligent than you and I've completely dominated you in this debate.Run away back to discord little faggot. Maybe your buddies will give you a definition for kind that is consistent with genetic data (I doubt it).
>>18016028>I refuted your refutation of presuppNo, you didn't.
>>18016035>I'm in my early 30'sHow embarrassing. I wouldn't admit that if I were you, you have the intellect of a child.>Run away back to discord little faggotKeep seething tranny
>>18016035> consistent with genetic dataBiological information is better explained by design than undirected blind processes.
>>18016047Brother, you are doing the definition of pearls before swine if you continue speaking to this rodent.
>>18016044Buddy, I completely refuted every one of you arguments and completely proved my own. I'm substantially more intelligent than you are. You still have not given a definition for kind that is consistent with actual living populations (which is why it must correlate with genetic data). I can do this but it further shows universal descent. You can't because your position is false and can not be substantiated in reality.Sorry buddy, but evolution is a fact. You need to come to terms with this.
>>18016047No, it literally isn't. You have NO understanding if genetics or biology.>>18016048Buddy, you do NOT understand biology or genetics. You literally do not know the first thing about molecular biology or genetic. You're a midwit.
>I'm substantially more intelligent than you are.
>>18016063You lost every exchange. It's all right here, we can all see itDefine "kind" and do so in a way that actually correlates with extant lifeforms genetic information. Go ahead (you wont)
>Every single nigga on earth can run petri dish experiments in their own basement and observe evolution>But evolution only works in bacteria it magically stops applying to living beings with generations that are long enough its hard to observe in a lab Really
>>18016072Yes, creationists are that stupid.Their go to thought terminating cliche is "the bacteria remains bacteria!"
>>18016074>the bacteria remains bacteria>this proves it can turn into people
>evolution just stops working when its convenient >miracles also stopped happening around the mass production of cameras because god is shy If you unironically think like this you have no right to call yourself white
You have 0 understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. You are self-refuting yourself every time you open your mouth to speak a word.If macro=micro were truly a "mathematical law," you could:> Write the equation> Show the proof> Calculate specific predictions> Demonstrate no limiting factorsBut when pushed, evolutionists retreat to "given enough time" or "no known barriers" - that's not mathematical proof, that's assumption.God bless you all. I hope that you find your way in this world and you come to God one way or another. I am sorry for insulting you. Have a good night.
Evolution is mathematically impossible. No cosmology admits of the trillions of years you would need for actual speciation to take place, if it were even possible to begin with.
>>18016081>>18016074Enjoy burning. :)
>>18016098I want to reiterate that micro=macro is not merely false but false by definition. The propositions are non-identical (e.g. it is possible to affirm either one without affirming the other), so the law of identity does not apply.
>>18016099>>18016105You were refuted very early in this thread. Continuing to repeat yourself is not going to change this.
>>18016098>You have 0 understanding of epistemology and metaphysicsI have a better understanding than you.You're literally a dyer incel presup moron
>>18016099See >>18013590
>>18016127if you believe hard enough, it will come true
>>18016150It's not a belief. I understand epistemology and philosophy better than you. Repeating "without the triune God knowledge is impossible" is not epistemologyNo matter how much you believe in Christianity, it won't come true.
>>18016132>>18013590This implies each generation is ever changing all the time which ignores living fossils that demonstrate arbitrarily not changing over long periods of time.
>>18016185Every individual has mutations in every population. "Living fossils" have accumulated genetic changes from their ancestors and they aren't exactly the same morphological. They're just very similar.That was a direct response to the fixation rate argument from voxdays "mittens" but they don't understand how it works. If you want to talk about fossils, we have tens of millions of fossils arranged in the way that evolution predicts, and predictions can be made to find the location of new fossils and what they will look like. Then the predictions are accurate and the fossils are found. This includes millions of "transitional" fossils.
