I'm in the process of finishing a double major in zoology and biology. Obviously I see evolution as a fact and will try to answer any questions or provide links if people are interested.

The point I would like to make is that science is worldwide. If evolution were an attempt by our government to push propaganda for some ulterior motive, why is it that the vast majority (at least 97%) of scientists everywhere support it? Hell, even the Pope and the Catholic Church support it. And It's not as if it was "made up" by our government; Darwin was from England.

I can buy a biology textbook in India, China, Japan, Australia...really anywhere and it will have the same exact information. What does that have to do with our government? Evolution is arguably the best-supported scientific theory we have and it is held to the same exact standards as every other theory we have (theory of relativity, heliocentrism, plate tectonics, etc.,etc.). Science is the same everywhere and our government has nothing to do with that. Facts and evidence are just facts and evidence.

wouldn't it make sense to teach a population they are worthless and without purpose?

I also don't really know where you're getting that from. This would be a philosophical discussion and isn't a subject addressed by science in any way.

Who says the creation story isn't propaganda?

Where's the evidence for creation story? The sole convincing point of that theory is that it cannot be disproven (unless you have other evidence you want to mention). In science, it's preferable to only believe in theories that can be disproven. Why? Because then you have a way of testing that theory. With a disprovable theory to the universe, you can't possibly figure out how true your theory is. So, perhaps some religions have decided to put forth, with no evidence, this creation story. What if they are the ones telling you propaganda? You shouldn't ever believe in anything absolutely without evidence. Could there be something better than evolution? Sure, but at least it does have evidence (from many scientific disciplines).

There is evidence for the creation account, and the evidence weighs in favor of creation.

Check out some of these seminars that interest you. My favorite is exploring the evidence for the worldwide flood. I encourage and pray you continue down this path of discovery and investigate the other side here. There is very much a scientific case for creation.

On the first two points, I take issue with the misapplication of the second law of thermodynamics. People like to simplify it on a broad, macroscopic level when they talk about chaos vs order, but those words mean something very different on a molecular level. Entropy (or the chaos), is not like a messy room vs a clean one, and it is certainly not like a complex organism (human) vs a simple one (bacteria). Entropy is about how ordered molecules are. Zero entropy would be a system with no heat where everything is nicely packed like a crystal, whereas maximum entropy would have infinite heat in a gaseous, spread-out manner. The 2nd law more specifically states that, in a closed system, entropy increases with time. On our planet (an open system with abundant solar energy provided), there is no contradiction between the 2nd law and the growing complexity of life. Cells reproduce to minimize their energy state and to maximize their entropy. Every cycle of cellular reproduction carries the chance of genetic mutations, altering the protein expression, and this is what we observe as evolution. Evolution can apply to a small scale like that (and explains why cancer starts and spreads), and it also explains how mutations can affect a whole species over time. Entropy does not prevent life from becoming complex. Rather, more complex life forms have more entropy, which means they generate more heat and have to get rid of it. Thus, complex life forms, like humans, must be able to cool off, which we do by sweating. Bacteria, on the other hand, do not make much entropy and therefore do not need complex ways to get rid of heat. Furthermore, the 2nd law does not contradict the Big Bang Theory or the idea of the universe being infinite. First off, there is nothing further from a closed system than the entirety of the universe (ie we cannot apply the 2nd law to an infinitely big area). Secondly, having all of the universe condensed in one point would represent the maximum possible order (molecules would have to be infinitely packed together to occupy a point), and the big bang theory makes sense of the expanding universe (decreasing order, increasing entropy). So even if we do apply the 2nd law to the open system universe, there's no inherent contradiction. Sorry this explanation is so long, but all of this which I typed makes it very difficult for me to accept creationism as a scientific theory. In my honest opinion, creationism is for religious people who do not like the contradictions between their beliefs and the implications of evolution (or cosmology/abiogenesis/etc), and it is therefore convenient to believe evolution is just a massive conspiracy. I have no problem with your skepticism of evolution, but I wish you would apply the same skeptical rigor to creationism.

That article is a vague introduction... it is not the evidence itself but a summary of our position. I would encourage you to look into the more technical debates going on over the specific evidences in question.

Well, to be honest, I'm not very impressed when the starting argument is a rehashed misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics (that creationists keep insisting to use). And I'm not fond of religiously based arguments (hence your praying that I embrace creationism, I'm not praying that you accept evolution). Also, every creationist argument I've ever heard is really just an attempt to poke a hole in evolution, hoping that creationism may fill the void. That is a red flag for non-scientific science. You should not have to even mention the words evolution or big bang theory when trying to prove creationism. You should rely on arguments that have nothing to do with competing theories. Until creationists start to actually do this, I will not respect your theory as a scientific one. It seems to me more and more so to be an exclusively religious theory for people that don't like evolution. Bad news: something isn't false just because you don't like it.

Check out this lecture on the worldwide flood evidence.

You've been looking in the wrong places, evidently.

I read what you sent me. I'm starting to wonder if you have. And it's the same argument all YEC's make. There's no nice way to say this: you guys are willfully ignorant in the purpose of defending your God.

You can assume that to ignore it and wish it away... but it was the evidence that led me to believing... not the other way around.

I was an agnostic/atheist who believed everything I was taught in school until I did a little research of my own. It's up to you to study and find out.

"It's up to you to find evidence to back up my own beliefs, rather than it being my responsibility to provide evidence of my beliefs to you". Seems like a cop out to me. If you want society at large to respect creationism, you shouldn't post junk that you likely haven't even read (and then dismiss that junk which I did take the time to read when I broke it down scientifically). I've actually learned a lot of biology and thermodynamics in undergrad and grad school. And they actually present their evidence, and their theories make sense. I don't think you've spent much time at all learning about evolution. I don't even think you were ever an atheist (being angry at God doesn't count as being an atheist, that just makes you a reluctant theist).

I don't even think you were ever an atheist (being angry at God doesn't count as being an atheist, that just makes you a reluctant theist).

I guess your mind is closed then. Perhaps that's why you can't see outside of your box.

No dude, if you think a god is real, you are a theist. If you don't like him but still think he is real, then too bad.

I can buy a biology textbook in India, China, Japan, Australia...really anywhere and it will have the same exact information. What does that have to do with our government?

I am not saying the theory of evolution is false. What I am saying is that the ease with which you accept the narrative (because all the books say it) is quite slippery to begin with. Scientists have been known to pick and choose data and to support entrenched theories and stay within the boundaries of academia lest they be 'proven' idiots.

I believe in Evolution, species gradually adapt to their environment- its a proven fact. But I also believe that Science has become too technocratic and its failure to address certain topics is a failure not of the subject itself, but the people in charge of it.

As a Christian, I look at it this way: I don't know if evolution is real, and I don't really care. The whole "How old is the universe and where did it all come from" issue used to bug the heck outta me when I was younger, but I finally realized that it doesn't really matter in the long run. I mean, when I'm dead and gone, I'm not really gonna care if the world was formed in seven literal days or four billion years. I'll be in heaven playing cards with Moses or something. I know the Bible says creation took seven days, but it also says that God's ways aren't our ways. His thoughts are higher than ours and all that. Some folks take that to mean that in God's eyes, billions of years is only like a week. Interesting theory, but it's just that: a theory. Just like the theory of evolution. I'm just satisfied in knowing who made it all, and for me, it's God. Regardless of what you choose to believe, it all takes a little faith, even evolution, because nobody was around back at the earth's formation to post it on r/thathappened.

I'll be in heaven playing cards with Moses or something.

You do realize that is not what Christianity teaches heaven is right? If your body is here and your soul passes on, you would not have the physical form to play cards nor will you be able to see loved ones, because you will not have physical eyes. This is something Christians don't really understand.

It was a joke bro. A joke.

Also, I'm not so sure about not seeing anything. We'll have a new, "incorruptable" body.

should've added a /s at the end?

Well, only that part was a joke. :p

Yes and no. I believe adaptation can, over time, create new species. But I don't believe we share a common ancestor with monkeys, and I don't believe the new species would be as different from its ancestor as, say, birds from dinosaurs.

Yeah, I think that's the term.

There's no such thing as microevolution or macroevolution. They are both simply evolution.

OH! im so sorry to offend you mister

Who said anything about offending? You sure are defensive

i just forgot that the evidence for evolution doesn't exist

You can choose to disagree with the evidence if you wish but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

you need to research this (evidence)

Yes, I believe you should do some research seeing as how you don't understand a basic concept of evolution

haha i understand more about evolution then most evolutionist

The fact that you don't understand some very simple and fundamental concepts- let alone accept them makes me question if you do, otherwise you wouldn't be using words like "macroevolution" and then acting incredulous when someone calls you on it.

yes i have done lots of research for this (evidence) there is none

Also makes me question your earlier statement. Perhaps you just don't understand what the word evidence means.

you have to defend evolution i dont so give me some evidence

Your archaic understand of the tenets of evolutions tells me you haven't done any research and your continued defensiveness and stating that "you know evolution (when you've made it clear you don't)" says to me you're not interested in discussion.

Dude when you start fixing grammar problems you've lost the battle

Huh?

i asked a simple question if evolution is true and so easy to understand why cant you find any evidence?

No, you made a poor assumption about the system of evolution which I stated and then you launched into a defensive tirade trying to back up your incorrect point- which you are now, again, avoiding and trying to hammer home your initial point.

and so easy to understand why cant you find any evidence?

I see evidence all around me

The main issue I have with human evolution is the timeline. It seems like for humans to have evolved higher level cognitive functioning would've taken a longer time than is accepted by the mainstream. There are people like Graham Hancock and Michael Cremo, or anyone who believes in Atlantians think modern man has existed for much longer than is current accepted. Some of these people use this as evidence against human evolution, i think it is evidence for it.

Enough time would have had to pass for quite a few intermediate species to have existed and become extinct. Thats fine, but is there an intermediate for the complex aspects of human existence like consciousness?

Yes and no. I understand the process of natural selection in selecting traits and specializing within a kind of animal. I do not believe, however, that natural selection can make a cat ever be anything other than a cat. Cats will always be cats and dogs will always be dogs... though there are certainly some strange ones.

You are correct in thinking that there is an element of psychological manipulation to mandatory teaching of evolution. Nazi Germany was a test before they implemented it worldwide, and we all know how well that went over.

The problem is with the way evolution is presented in the popular science media that leads to it sounding fishy. I was watching a David Attenborough documentary from the 90s the other day, and even he misrepresented it to a degree.

The misconception is that one kind of animal can transform into another. It doesn't really work that way. For example, cats and dogs, no matter how far into the future you go, will always be cats and dogs. There might be a few cosmetic changes, changes in size, color, etc., but, fundamentally they are likely to be easily recognizable for what they are.

If we go back a bloody long way back in time, there was a mutual ancestor of dogs and cats. We don't know what that animal was or what it looked like. The only thing that we could really say about it is that if you were to see it, you'd see something that looked very little like a dog or cat, except to say that all of the features appear to be represented – four legs, ears, tail, fur, etc. but for the most part it would not appear to be a dog or a cat.

My friend made an astute observation while we were tripping on acid one day. He said "oh my god – everything is a dog! Look at all the animals, they're all like different species of dogs, you could see a horse as a dog, a camel as a dog, a lion is a dog, they're all dogs!"

The point I took from it is that as humans, we look for the differences between things in order to differentiate and categorize. But, from for example an alien's perspective, all the quadrupedal animals of earth might all look very similar indeed.

In a way, cats have always been cats since the beginning of time and so have dogs, it's just that at one point the primordial dog was the same creature as a primordial cat. To think that a dog becomes a cat is to try to drive your car sideways across a multi-lane freeway.

Let me try one last time to elucidate what I mean. The misconception is that the animals we see today – very much the "final forms" resulting from billions of years of evolution ARE connected, but much more distantly than we are able to easily conceive.

Think about the ocean. We see sharks preying on fish, and we tend to think that there were fish, and then sharks came along and started eating them one day after they came back from their evolution holiday as the apex predator of the ocean, but the truth of this story is that the battles have been waging since the beginning, each side slowing changing on the one hand to catch better and on the other to better evade capture. Ever since they were microscopic proto animals. Single-cell shark ate single-cell sardine and they both evolved symbiotically in a battle that has led to the final forms we see today.

The similarities between the animals of earth aren't as evident today as they might have been millions of years ago. During the big extinction events, 95% of species on earth were wiped out. It boggles the mind to think that at one time, there were 20x more kinds of animal and plant on earth than there are now. There would have been many more "in-between" species than we see now, and the fact that all creatures on earth have shared the same ancestor at some point in the past would be quite evident.

the fact that all creatures on earth have shared the same ancestor at some point in the past...

It's not a fact. It's pure speculation without evidence - also known as faith.

No matter how many years you give a population of cats they will never be anything but cats. If you wish to, by faith, believe that isn't true you are free to do so but you cannot insist that it is fact because there is not a single shred of evidence in favor of your hypothesis. Furthermore, evolution is the least of your problems when it comes to an atheistic or naturalistic hypothesis. It's only the last step in a long, fantastic series of miracles that have no support in their favor at all.

At the very basic level, we must accept that we live on a ball in a vast expanse even... yet all evidence points to us living on a flat plane in a closed or domed system.

I find that going by the evidence alone I must accept the Biblical account. The naturalistic hypothesis has too many impossible hurdles that cannot be tackled, all the while the Biblical account is vindicated again and again and again.

The only support for naturalism at all is consensus... popular opinion. That's it. I cannot accept that.

That's what I said – that a cat has always been a cat and will always be one. It's just that sufficiently long enough ago the thing that was a cat was also a dog. Sort of how Ubuntu and Fedora were once the same operating system but will never be in the future.

Even if some one or some deity intervened at some point and just decided to "make" all the creatures here, the creatures that have been created would still evolve a bit if the environment changed.

It's just that sufficiently long enough ago the thing that was a cat was also a dog.

No. This is not true.

Even if some one or some deity intervened at some point and just decided to "make" all the creatures here, the creatures that have been created would still evolve a bit if the environment changed.

God did create each kind (baramin). Over time, through natural selection and genetic isolation, genetic material degrades and disease increases. We could not continue reproducing forever. Our genetic code is accumulating errors and degrading over time. It's not changing or getting any better, but rather we are headed on a downward spiral towards oblivion. We are in desperate need of saving.

Well anyway, I am actually ambivalent about the creation/evolution axis of opinion. You are right to say we might well have been created; I personally don't know. However, I tend to favor entertaining evolution theories (which do not preclude the intervention of a higher being at some point, but also don't necessitate it) mainly because it provides food for thought and is at least congruent with the process of adaptation and natural selection.

I mean, half the time I'm trying to work out whether God in fact created everything this morning a couple of minutes before I woke up. Really, neither you nor I will ever know the answer.

Really, neither you nor I will ever know the answer.

This isn't true either. That's exactly what they want you to think. The Bible is literally proof of His existence by way of reasoning. There is prophecy and consistency that is not possibly the work of men.

The simplest example I can point to of this is Daniel 3. The chapter, confirmed to have been written ~600BC, foretells the succession of world empires during the time of Babylon by name and then in great detail: Babylon -> Medo-Persia -> Greece -> Rome -> Papal Rome

It then goes on to tell us that the papacy, upon it's restoration after the foretold 1260 years it's initial conception lasts (yes, this is specified seven times in the Bible and was correctly prophecied!), is the final kingdom that will be in place upon Christ's return.

If you want to have a serious, in-depth, every nook and cranny covered study, Total Onslaught is a lecture series by Walter Veith that vindicates what I've just said. If you'd rather read, here are studies on Daniel and Revelation from his website, and there is lots of other information there as well. He goes over every detail with a fine tooth comb quoting nothing but credible source material. You will not find a more rigorous, thorough, and well documented presentation than this one... and if you enjoy the subject you will most likely be captivated as I was. They don't want you to know about this... that's why they have Christianity locked down. Even so, as prophecied, there is a remnant church that the 'dragon is wroth with' and is making war against. There are some left who stand for the truth whilst the rest have fallen.

You can prove that the Pope is the king of this world via credible, public knowledge sources. It's simply fact. The secret societies, governments, religions... they're all at his command now. This video outlines the news articles, one after another, all from last year that demonstrate all the moves the Pope is making right now. Religons are being united, governments are being manipulated publicly... It's all right in our face and the Bible foretold it all thousands of years before it happened.

You can't trust a church that worships on sunday... and you need to understand what the Bible says for yourself because the majority is seriously deceived. For instance, hell is not eternal torture but non-existence. The papacy is Antichrist, the beast. The mark of the beast is Sunday worship. God is the same from the beginning to the end. There is no secret rapture before a massive calamity, but God's people go through the tribulation. People don't go straight to heaven, but rather all are dead and awaiting the resurrection unless otherwise specified. It all makes more sense and is much more logical than they've corrupted it to be.

Schools are indoctrination to keep us oblivious to reality. It's why they shove the big bang, evolution, and other pseudo-scientific theories down our throats as fact and then laugh when we swallow them without thinking. NASA's fake garbage is the only reason people think the earth is a ball... that and Jesuit missionaries. Science is being used as a tool to push lies as truth.

It's the biggest conspiracy in the world. It is the new world order. It's the truth and once you begin to understand it will set you free, bring you joy, and give you peace. We can know God is real and it's not blindness. God is the one who told us all this was going on, named the names, and is ultimately in control of this storm. We are in the last days and expecting His arrival now. It's urgent. The writing is on the wall.

We can have a chance to do this over again with the perfect conditions. That's the point. Everything is going down the toilet and we're smart enough to see that. There is no turning back... we must start over without the rebellion against God because we need Him.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD..." (Isaiah 1:18)

At the very basic level, we must accept that we live on a ball in a vast expanse even... yet all evidence points to us living on a flat plane in a closed or domed system.

Wait...WHAT?

Did you seriously just claim that the earth is flat? Seriously?

Please feel free to share some of this "all evidence" you speak of.

I find that going by the evidence alone I must accept the Biblical account.

So you think the earth is only about 3,000 years old?

So you think the earth is only about 3,000 years old?

Closer to six thousand

Please feel free to share some of this "all evidence" you speak of.

I found this article by Rob Skiba recently that puts it all together quite nicely. He takes you through the evidence that took him from laughing to seriously questioning.

Also, here are some free books
Terra Firma
100 Proofs the Earth is not a Globe
Earth not a Globe! (alternate)

These should get you started. If you don't like reading, just search 'flat earth' on youtube. Have fun waking up!

So when they show video of people in space squirting liquid in the zero gravity and it forms into little balls...that's what...CGI?

The earth is 6,000 years old? So...dinosaur fossils were placed pre-aged into the ground by God or something?

So when they show video of people in space squirting liquid in the zero gravity and it forms into little balls...that's what...CGI?

Or a parabolic flight simulating zero gravity.

So...dinosaur fossils were placed pre-aged into the ground by God or something?

No. Dinosaurs were created with man, came across the Ark, and have always lived alongside man. They were known as dragons through history and were exterminated by humans (among other challenges their survival faced).

So when they show video of people in space squirting liquid in the zero gravity and it forms into little balls...that's what...CGI?

Or a parabolic flight simulating zero gravity.

OK, so if a droplet of water bends itself into a ball in zero gravity...

(Do you see where I'm going with this? )

No. Dinosaurs were created with man, came across the Ark, and have always lived alongside man. They were known as dragons through history and were exterminated by humans (among other challenges their survival faced).

Annnd I'm done here. Thanks.

Do you realize Rob Skiba accepts that the earth is round?

It says it right in the article you posted.

I do still believe in a globe model myself.

Yes, I'm aware. It's still a great outline of the argument for a flat, tent-like world.

False, earth alone is at least over a billion years old. Many evidence point to this. One such thing is the light from other stars. It takes many years to travel from the nearest star alone. Youtube videos doesn't do shit to actual evidence. Please show a actual research paper.

A video by Ken Ham doesn't do shit. The man is a loon.

I didn't reference anything from Ken Ham... why would you bring him up?

What you think you know about the past and space is your faith. You're free to have it, but if you'll take the time to go through the material I presented you just might find that your opinion and what you've been told about the cosmos is wrong on every level. Use you brain and think critically upon the new light presented in what I've given rather than closing off, ignoring the material, and asking for material from the circle jerk of modern 'science' - falsely so called.

I was being sarcastic.

What you think you know about the past and space is your faith.

Dude, no it isn't. I ate chips an hour ago, that isn't faith.

but if you'll take the time to go through the material I presented you just might find that your opinion and what you've been told about the cosmos is wrong on every level.

No, a book made by a loon needing money and a youtube video isn't enough. Post me real research, now. Stop stalling. NOW. Don't give me your "holier then thou" bullshit, give me real evidence.

Use you brain and think critically upon the new light presented in what I've given rather than closing off, ignoring the material, and asking for material from the circle jerk of modern 'science' - falsely so called.

You are not more creditable then thousands years of research and advanced study's. Don't bullshit me. Show me evidence in a credible source. Now. Don't stall. I wasn't to see it in your next comment. If you don't, you already lost.

If you actually wanted evidence you would be reading and searching instead of bashing me. Take your ignorance fueled attacks elsewhere.

Hey, I already did. I'm prepared ahead of time, actually. So I know you are bullshitting.

you had your chance buddy, and you couldn't deliver. So don't act like you just won some battle. You didn't post actual research on anything you said.

You said it was X years old? Then prove it. Don't tip toe around me.you may not notice, but I'm on a full frontal assault on your claims and you so far have no way to fight back on it. So unless you actually show something credible, then you have not a single victory.

It also looks like you didn't post anything. So you lost.

I'm on a full frontal assault on your claims and you so far have no way to fight back on it.

Funniest thing I've heard all day! Have an upvote! XD

I think I won here.

You can't even defend yourself. You just tippy toe around and not defending your claim.

There's not a serious bone in his body.

Yeah, square is pretty silly.

You just pmd me like 12 times and were trying to bully me. Go away you harass people.

? You're pretty paranoid. You sent me 12 PMs. If you want, I can get you some help, as a friend.

You did though. You pmd me and tried insulting me. If you are now saying you didn't and wish to be a liar. That's fine. You are a bully

Was it when I called you out for not giving sources, evidence, etc and didn't want to make you look like a fool in public? Because it sounds like I was doing more of a favor. Also I never lied. You replied to me.

Also you are off topic from the discussion. Please get back on the tracks.

You also followed me by going to my comments. You aren't innocent.

Now that we are back on track, let's have a debate. Do you think evolution is false?

Excuse me? Now you're being paranoid. You called me a nut. You never asked for sources. You tried instigating me. I haven't done anything. You keep harassing me

I already refuted all of which you said and I already asked for sources.

I'll ask you one more time, get back on the subject.

You don't know what you are talking about. Evolution is hardly understood as a theory. You never provide anything though. You didn't refute that you pmd me to incite me. You did none of that. You didn't provide sources that you weren't being antagonizing. You've done nothing, all day and night over and over again.

scientific theory: is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

It fits it pretty well. Go tell me a "flaw" and I'll tell you why it isn't. Posted a link to a single source isn't going to help. You won't read it, let alone even find the part you have trouble understanding.

Take your downvote away, that's not how they are used.

I didn't say there was a "flaw". Why don't you understand language a little more. Go away. Don't reply to me or pm me again. End of discussion.

You gave me the heavy impression that there was when you said (and I quote) "Evolution is hardly understood as a theory. ".

So what did you mean by this? I think you need to understand language a little more.

Sounds like you don't want to be proven wrong.

Go ahead and without a source or anything, without copy pasta, explain evolution. Your words, explain it

I don't understand why you have to force me to only explain it myself with nothing else. I don't know what this is suppose to prove.

Plus, really copy pastas and sources is the only thing to do, because other people already made better explanations.

It's proves that, sure there may be a nice solid experiment and theory, and several others may have agreed with their own studies, but that doesn't mean you understand it, can test it, can prove it. Just throwing out science papers hardly does anything other than show someone somewhere yielded positive results for the theory.

So me, a single person, is going to prove your point that requires a statistic?

Considering we watched it happen with our own (and personally my) eyes, I'd say we have a pretty solid idea. We pretty much proved it by fossils, DNA, and testing. Again, I think we got a pretty good idea of it.

There is pretty much a single theory of evolution. The .1% or what eve of scientists that disagree are due to other variables, such a religion, ignorance, and their field of study not being involved with it.

So don't pretend that it's a mess of opinions.

The creationist's little idea has so much variety with drastically different opinions, they don't even have a single clear official "theory", let alone anything creditable.

I also remember asking you questions first. Why didn't you answer them?

I have not stated my opinion. I have not suggested those theories are wrong or right. I simply state that you can only mimic an arguement, you can't expand an idea or contribute anything other than the degradation of any opposing idea. You are terrible for "science"

I didn't answer your questions because you aren't trying to have a discussion. You are in bash mode. You need to ridicule. You need to make yourself feel better about yourself by providing papers showing someone is wrong. You are soooooo smart.

That's why I asked you. I'm swinging at nothing until you say yours.

I simply state that you can only mimic an arguement, you can't expand an idea or contribute anything other than the degradation of any opposing idea. You are terrible for "science"

So let me get this right. It's better for scientists to have bias on scientific theories just so you can have a large conflicting opinions? I think you are the one that's is terrible for "science". I already evaluated the creationist "opinion" and they are just as wrong as their opinion about the age of the earth. Scientists already gave creation a chance in the subject, but it offered no results while evolution did.

I didn't answer your questions because you aren't trying to have a discussion. You are in bash mode. You need to ridicule. You need to make yourself feel better about yourself by providing papers showing someone is wrong. You are soooooo smart.

No, you are tip toeing away from me, pathetically. The only reason I'm progressing in this is because you are not doing anything but giving me smart ass responses that serve no point. If you didn't want me to be on the assault, then you should of done something within the half dozen replies we already sent As you can see in the comment, this is clear.

No, we weren't having a discussion other than you pmd me to insult me to try to get me to say something you could then show your friends. You pushed me into this discussion. You are trying to swing before you have an idea of my opinion, thus you are just fighting. You have no point. Now scurry away little child

In addition, I've never stated any opinion or belief about the age of the earth. You literally make things up. You are just a bad person

I had your consent, I asked you of your idea and you didn't tell me. So I was forced to "guess". That is your fault. Not mine.

You have no point. Now scurry away little child

Oh wow. What a smoking gun. You just refuted my entire argument with nothing but your hot air and smart ass responses.

Go scurry away little child, I hope you can make a argument someday. ;)

In addition, I've never stated any opinion or belief about the age of the earth. You literally make things up. You are just a bad person

I never said anything about it being your opinion. You literally make things up. You are just a bad person.

Your comment offered nothing. It's made up of fallacy's, lies, and a vague description of your side that's you clearly took the liberty of not telling. Better luck next time. If you want, I can teach you how to actually debate a little, but I hardly think you will comprehend it.

Poor uneducated guess of yours

Aww, cute. Go along and play with the other kids. Enjoy your echo chamber. ;)

Love ya. I'll make sure to make you look like a fool later again.

Result to insults. See ya

It's clear I won here, go circle jerk someplace else.

Won what? Looking like a maniac?

I think you are seeing things. Because there isn't anything that would say that.

Example?

this post

Up until then you never asked for sources we weren't having an argument other than you pmd me insults because you were upset with me

Was it when I mistaken you for another person? All of you nuts look the same. Plus if you look below, you haven't once showed me anything else then verbal shit.

Hardly fits the definition of "maniac". English isn't hard, neither is providing your argument and not smart ass responses. Unless you are autistic. That's the image you are giving right now.

For the last dozen of comments, you haven't once told me your stance, sources, and research. All you have is a chain of comments that shows you spewing shit out of your mouth looking like a fool. So, if you are done acting like a fool, you can finally (after so many comments of pointless shit posting from you) post something of value. Go on, you can('t) do it. Who can('t) do it? That's right. You can('t).

Nows your chance to not be like the rest of the shit posters, take it. Give up if you just shit post again.

Oh ya, I PM'ed you? Are you forgetting something?

https://www.reddit.com/message/messages/3ev7io

I reported yours. You seem delusional bro. Go get so counseling.

You got issues with autism? You are a cruel person. You seek out people you feel are inferior and try to ridicule them. I am not autistic, but have dedicated a significant amount of time to autism. You should be more respectful and less full of yourself

Ya ya. Keep acting like the victim. Doesn't bother me.

You want me to Google search some psychiatrists for ya? I'm seriously concerned for your safety. I feel you may be creating a false reality for yourself. You should get some people together for a support group. Also, volunteer sometime and do yourself some good. Wish your mother a happy mothers day and get her flowers

I think I need to remind you that you are the one who thinks evolution is fake.

You are delusional. I have not hinted at that possibility. You are so bad. I wish you luck. Please, get yourself some help

Then why give the impression that you were? That's really child like of you.

I never did.

Yes you did.

Stop downvoting, that's not how they are used.

Obviously evolution has flaws because we have you. You wouldn't be such a dick if it was beneficial. Get outta ya mothas basement

Resorting to insults are you? Real progressive.

Well you been a terrible person the entire time. I'm just trying to get through to you that you aren't smart. You are just a bully. No real person in real society is going to give a fuck about you. Thus you should get help

Plus you think the world is flat

I think you are being a bully, you insulted me too, you assumed I think the world is flat, and the most you have done is call me a bad person.

Go on, comment again, act like a child. That's what you do with the downvote option.

Enjoy your life sir

It doesn't really matter if you believe in "evolution" (natural selection) - it's happening whether you like it or not. "Evolution" is not, however, an explanation of the origins of life in the universe.

Where and when life originated is still a mystery to science, but this doesn't mean that credence should be given to any of the numerous creation myths that humans have invented to fill this void, including the Old Testament fairy-tale involving a garden, a talking snake and a special tree. Forcing this nonsense on young children is indoctrination that could harm their critical-thinking faculties in later life.

I certainly do believe in evolution.

[deleted]

That isn't evolution, unless we are talking Pokémon-style. That is metamorphosis. Two entirely different processes.

I'll be honest and I don't mind downvotes.

I believe in the general idea of evolution, yes. Desirable traits are passed down over time to allow for the successful continuation of the species.

But I don't believe we share a common ancestor with monkeys. Are we extremely similar to them? Yes but I still don't think we actually come from monkeys.

No. I accept macroevolution but not when we're saying monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.

I agree.

Evolution is clearly a phenomenon. However, I refuse to accept that human beings stemmed from a monkey.

Yeah, I think that's the term.

It's just that sufficiently long enough ago the thing that was a cat was also a dog.

No. This is not true.

Even if some one or some deity intervened at some point and just decided to "make" all the creatures here, the creatures that have been created would still evolve a bit if the environment changed.

God did create each kind (baramin). Over time, through natural selection and genetic isolation, genetic material degrades and disease increases. We could not continue reproducing forever. Our genetic code is accumulating errors and degrading over time. It's not changing or getting any better, but rather we are headed on a downward spiral towards oblivion. We are in desperate need of saving.

There's no such thing as microevolution or macroevolution. They are both simply evolution.

I was being sarcastic.

What you think you know about the past and space is your faith.

Dude, no it isn't. I ate chips an hour ago, that isn't faith.

but if you'll take the time to go through the material I presented you just might find that your opinion and what you've been told about the cosmos is wrong on every level.

No, a book made by a loon needing money and a youtube video isn't enough. Post me real research, now. Stop stalling. NOW. Don't give me your "holier then thou" bullshit, give me real evidence.

Use you brain and think critically upon the new light presented in what I've given rather than closing off, ignoring the material, and asking for material from the circle jerk of modern 'science' - falsely so called.

You are not more creditable then thousands years of research and advanced study's. Don't bullshit me. Show me evidence in a credible source. Now. Don't stall. I wasn't to see it in your next comment. If you don't, you already lost.

There is evidence for the creation account, and the evidence weighs in favor of creation.

Check out some of these seminars that interest you. My favorite is exploring the evidence for the worldwide flood. I encourage and pray you continue down this path of discovery and investigate the other side here. There is very much a scientific case for creation.

Go ahead and without a source or anything, without copy pasta, explain evolution. Your words, explain it

No, we weren't having a discussion other than you pmd me to insult me to try to get me to say something you could then show your friends. You pushed me into this discussion. You are trying to swing before you have an idea of my opinion, thus you are just fighting. You have no point. Now scurry away little child

In addition, I've never stated any opinion or belief about the age of the earth. You literally make things up. You are just a bad person

Was it when I mistaken you for another person? All of you nuts look the same. Plus if you look below, you haven't once showed me anything else then verbal shit.

Hardly fits the definition of "maniac". English isn't hard, neither is providing your argument and not smart ass responses. Unless you are autistic. That's the image you are giving right now.

For the last dozen of comments, you haven't once told me your stance, sources, and research. All you have is a chain of comments that shows you spewing shit out of your mouth looking like a fool. So, if you are done acting like a fool, you can finally (after so many comments of pointless shit posting from you) post something of value. Go on, you can('t) do it. Who can('t) do it? That's right. You can('t).

Nows your chance to not be like the rest of the shit posters, take it. Give up if you just shit post again.

Oh ya, I PM'ed you? Are you forgetting something?

https://www.reddit.com/message/messages/3ev7io