Nocturne

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There isn't any. How can I summarize something that doesn't exist. It's a trick question and I have disproved the very question itself.

You haven't, you haven't even formulated your basis as to why you need a counter-argument. You've just stated several well known logical fallacies and have been proven wrong.

NAME A SOURCE WHEN YOU POST SOMETHING

[Rellapse10]

i am gonna pee on all of you one day from heaven... i will be yelling you mad bro at you for eternity.

[Nihilist_santa]

I understand what I was forced to learn about evolution in school but the teachers could never answer basic questions without doing some crazy dance. For instance what about the stomach? How did a stomach evolve to hold acid? or the eye needs all of its parts to function so how does anyone part form individually.

Evolution hinges or these mutations but there are very few beneficial mutations that I am aware of although I have heard some argue that sickle cell is a beneficial mutation (LOL) . Mutations would have to be passed to the offspring as well which usually does not happen and you have other things to consider like the pleiotropic effect which means one system affected by a mutation does not happen in isolation but usually effects other systems of the organism.

If someone could show me beneficial mutations (and no I dont mean moths during the industrial revolution that have already been shown to in fact too not be an example of this) then perhaps I would change my views.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What is a source going to do? Why do I need a source? The source is the entire scientific community and everything science has ever learned.

You can't be serious. The entire scientific community and everything that science has taught us supports evolution on one condition, that the evidence points to it. Guess what, all of the evidence points to it, there is no evidence pointing otherwise.

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everything we currently know thanks to science, says that evolution is not possible. It is a direct contradiction to various scientific laws and theories.

Which ones?

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The law of biogenesis states that all life forms can only produce more of their own kind. Cell theory states that all cells come from pre-existing cells.

I've already debunked this, twice, why are you bringing it up again?

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Evolution says that life forms can eventually produce life forms not consistent of its original form.

That is not what evolution says at all.

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One of these things cannot be true but one is already known to be true ALWAYS which is why it was made into a law. You cannot have a theory that contradicts a law, less that law be disproved. The law has never been disproved therefor the theory by definition, is unscientific and baseless. Until abiogenesis can be proven, the theory of evolution will remain at best, a hypothesis. I'm sorry that I understand how science works better than you but this is the reality of the situation.

This is your last chance. I'm explaining you a very basic principle here. Abiogenesis and Evolution are two completely different forms of life science. Stop comparing the two, stop trying to assert that the two are related to one another.
You can theoretically have Evolution without Abiogenesis (God creates life that can adapt to it's envronment), you can theoretically have Abiogenesis without evolution (artificial life would be the simplest example). Don't mention it again.

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

P.s. there are no threats of eternal damnation, only promises.

Evidence please. A shred of evidence. I beg you.

[Nihilist_santa]

I want to add also why would a single celled organism even need to evolve? It is already perfectly adapted to its environment. Why the order from simple to complex. Complex creatures would require far more fine tuning for their environment. It seems ass backwards.

[Rellapse10]

WHO GIVES A FUCK

[Hitchens]

Nocturne's sources can be found here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I understand what I was forced to learn about evolution in school but the teachers could never answer basic questions without doing some crazy dance. For instance what about the stomach? How did a stomach evolve to hold acid? or the eye needs all of its parts to function so how does anyone part form individually.

Both of these things are not exclusive to multi-celled organisms, only the level of sophistication.
Single celled organisms have Lysosomes which contains digestive enzymes that without the ability to localize and contain them would dissolve the cell from the inside out.
Not all animals have eyes, not all cells have ocular organelles, however evolutionary theory explains to us that when different types of cells began to form symbiotic colonies, different cells began to specialize performing different tasks, this is how all of the sensory receptors eventually came about. There's no song and dance about it. You've simply had shitty teachers who couldn't think outside the box (Shitty curriculum)

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Evolution hinges or these mutations but there are very few beneficial mutations that I am aware of although I have heard some argue that sickle cell is a beneficial mutation (LOL) . Mutations would have to be passed to the offspring as well which usually does not happen and you have other things to consider like the pleiotropic effect which means one system affected by a mutation does not happen in isolation but usually effects other systems of the organism.

Natural selection. I can't simplify it more.

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone could show me beneficial mutations (and no I dont mean moths during the industrial revolution that have already been shown to in fact too not be an example of this) then perhaps I would change my views.

Do you know how many times they've needed to re-design penicillin since it's invention because the bacteria continues to mutate and adapt?

[OMGWTF420]

evolution

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[OMGWTF420]

Originally Posted by Rellapse10 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

WHO GIVES A FUCK

pity reply