I'm not here to argue for creationism, but I am here to argue viciously against evolution--knowing in my heart and soul my duty to spread knowledge and information to the pridefully ignorant.
I mean just think about it: nothing happened and then here we are? Not very logical sounding is it? No, no, no, but is creative (somewhat) I guess I can say. I mean, if evolution was true, then the far reaching implications of that would be disastrous.
Here's something my granpops once told me: open a jar of spaghetti. Look inside it. Do you see new life? Are there new organisms crawling through the muck and into the air to breath? No, that never happens. And you're darn glad it doesn't, because if evolution were true, the entire food industry would collapse under the weight of contamination of new life.
There's just so many holes here... gosh. It can be mentally draining arguing with such a defunct and idiotic idea. I guess I just want life to be better, and people to be happier. So evolution, real or imaginary? Please do not be silly and choose to be an ignoramus.
Charles Darwins argues that "if evolution were improbable then it would fall to it's knees."
But the problem is that the history of evolution is riddled with improbabilties, or coincidences of chance.
We see complex novel orders arising one time, then never again even given a similar time-frame in similar gene pools.
We see it takes mitochondria and chloroplasts 1.4 billion years to evolve. We can use this is a measure of how long it takes for complex structures to arise.
Then it takes a mere 20 million years or less for neurons and the immune system to develop simultaneously, which are much more complex. The nervous system never again evolves in placoans or sponges.
Then there is the mystery of limb regeneration, a very complicated genetic network which suddenly arises once and never again.
Then most telling there is the rapid evolution of the intelligence of man, which is unprecedented. A venerable miracle of evolution.
I believe God both used evolution as a method for producing his intended designs, and also had to intervene when evolution is an inefficient process. It might take 20 billion years for evolution to produce a nervous system from eukaryotic cells.
Luis Gutierrez
Oops I meant Richard Dawkins not Charles Darwin. I'm tired.
Carson Parker
>ITT >ignorance >arrogance >hopelessness Bye
Lucas Peterson
argument from authority most likely.
Wyatt Lewis
>I am here to argue viciously against evolution
Then why are you blathering about abiogenesis, you stupid moron? Separate issue.
once you watch this you will not be so stupid on the subject.
Bentley Phillips
Abiogenesis is still a topic of debate. There isn't a consensus as to how it started. Either RNA-First or Metabolism-First and they both have their flaws. There is also the problem of chirality.
BTW in the video he says it only takes one strand to begin life. Although more realistic scientists are looking at a process that would create billions of RNA.
Luke Barnes
/pol/ threads belong on /pol/
please do not post them on Veeky Forums
Thomas Price
>Abiogenesis is still a topic of debate.There isn't a consensus as to how it started.Either RNA-First or Metabolism-First and they both have their flaws. There is also the problem of chirality.BTW in the video he says it only takes one strand to begin life. Although more realistic scientists are looking at a process that would create billions of RNA.
so...what you're trying to tell me is that you're retarded.
Seriously though it really doesn't matter what you believe because you will never contribute anything to the field anyways.
That's my new go to response to this kind of science denialism... Just pointing out that it really doesn't matter what the idiots think because they aren't important and they benefit from the advances in science even while they deny them.
So be as dumb as you like because its a big spherical world and there is room for all kinds of stupid.
