Creationism. OC. tii ----.' Resolved Question Show me another a ileia. Mathematical proof that Darwin didn' t exist'? Jim the Alright, so lfie apply the propert
x

Creationism

tii ----.' Resolved Question Show me another a
ileia.
Mathematical proof that Darwin didn' t exist'?
Jim the
Alright, so lfie apply the properties of Evolution vs. No Evolution there is a 1: 1 :
mexican ls chance that they are actually correct.
muy hieno
So, ofthe theory of evolution is correct we should expect that 1 out of every 2 monkeys
should give birth to a human.
Now ifhe assume that we have 12000 Monkeys in captivity, and half inwhich are
female, you have 6000 pairs of monkeys that can produce offspring. If each female
gives birth 3 times, you new have 18000 Monkeys overhue span of roughly 10 years.
However, none ofthe offspring are human. They are all monkeys.
So what we expected to be about 9000 human births from zoo monkeys, according to
evolution, ended unjust being 18000 more monkeys, predicted from common sense.
I new challenge anyone here to show me a legitimate, scientific article ofa
zoo monkey giving birth to *one* single human being, let alone the 9000 that we
expected.
Therefore, we have solid, mathematical proofread Darwin did not exist.
2 years ago F Report Abuse
You 113
a wan iil, l, lall amen,
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+61
Views: 8306
Favorited: 3
Submitted: 10/20/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to clanmode submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#6 - ganjalf ONLINE (10/20/2012) [-]
>People who think the guy was actually serious
#16 - mahjimmiesarusslin (10/20/2012) [-]
Wow, anyone who thinks this ***** be serious, is crazy

Stupid people, i swear
User avatar #20 to #16 - atrocitustheking (10/20/2012) [-]
I hope you're right, but I've met too many who were serious as a heart attack about stuff like this (and had about the same grasp of logic).

It's Poe's Law. The difference between an idiot and someone pretending to be an idiot is often difficult to discern.
#36 - anon (10/21/2012) [-]
I believe in god, but this guy really grinds my gears.
#39 - anon (10/21/2012) [-]
obvious troll is obvious, and funnyjunk ***** their pants.
#19 to #5 - atrocitustheking (10/20/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Best answer ever. I think we in the US are the only ones to have a significant population of evolution deniers, also a significant population of climate change deniers. Clearly, I was born in the wrong place.
User avatar #34 to #19 - atrocitustheking (10/21/2012) [-]
Wait, now that I think about it, a good deal of the Middle East also denies evolution. Such company to be amongst... I love my country, why does it repay me with shamefur dispray?
#1 - endowedwhitegyuy (10/20/2012) [-]
dear jim the mexican is muy bueno:
#38 - Maroon (10/21/2012) [-]






Wow, what a logical and well thought out argument. It totally doesn't make me think whoever posted this is a *************** waste of oxygen or anything.
#42 - anon (03/03/2015) [-]
Well, this is obviously beyond "full retard" manifest.
User avatar #3 - atrocitustheking (10/20/2012) [-]
You don't have to teach both sides if one side is full of **** . It says "love thy neighbor" not "dumb down education because you don't understand science".
#10 to #3 - quentai (10/20/2012) [-]
It also says "God created man".
Evolution isn't and never will be proven, same as creation.
User avatar #12 to #10 - atrocitustheking (10/20/2012) [-]
Evolution has nothing to do with WHO or WHY, evolution is simply the method. If God set it in motion or not, evolutionary science has nothing to say on the matter. As for proven?
Uh, in the strictest sense, gravity, electricity, and atomic power are unproven too. There's actually less evidence for those three than there is for evolution, it's one of the most rock-solid theorems to date in terms of body of evidence.
Hell, scientists have even seen it happen in real time with quick living species like bacteria in a petri dish or fruit flies.
While difficult to view across long time scales with longer lived species, it is possible to watch it happen.

True, the scientific method can only disprove things, but if the theory of evolution were a prosecuting attorney at a trial, the body of evidence in its favour would be enough to convince any jury. It's the metaphorical equivalent of a smoking gun, fingerprints on the murder weapon, the victim's blood on the accused's shirt, photo of them leaving the scene, 3-5 credible eyewitnesses, voicemail's of the accused threatening the victim with bodily harm, and no alibi.
That the accused hasn't signed a confession or come and said "I did it" doesn't matter, all the evidence points to this conclusion.
#13 to #12 - quentai (10/20/2012) [-]
You're confusing natural selection with evolution.
Any evidence of evolution can also be seen as evidence for other things, such as the flood. There are no eyewitnesses for Evolution, because, quite simply, it "takes millions of years to happen".

The Bible says man was created in -ONE- day.

- in the strictest sense, gravity, electricity, and atomic power are unproven too-
We can't witness Evolution, but we can witness the power of gravity and electricity. Comparing them is ridiculous.
Prove gravity: pick up a pencil. Let go. Hey look, gravity!
Prove Evolution: Get a single-celled organism. Make it evolve into something more complex.

Get back to me on that.
User avatar #14 to #13 - atrocitustheking (10/20/2012) [-]
Natural selection IS evolution. That's the WHOLE POINT. Evolution is the variation of allele frequencies. If you have have your mother's eyes and your dad's chin, guess what? That's evolution in action.

If you accept that you inherit traits from your parents then what you are accepting is an example of evolution. It's not even just biology, geology, chemistry, physics, everything is pointing to this one conclusion.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, eats and sleeps like a duck, and gives birth to little baby ducklings, then it's a #$%!-ing DUCK. Just because it's not a card carrying member of the "Donald and Daffy Association of American Ducks" or it didn't stand up at the end of Spartacus with "I am a duck!" doesn't change that.

We CAN witness evolution, did you not read what I wrote?
Accuse me of lying, fine, but I covered that before you even asked it! We've seen it happen.

You know why there's no cure for the common cold? This is because it mutates too fast, rhinopharyngiti, or the "rhino virus" adapts to any drug we develop. We kill some cells but by the time they're all dead, they lived long enough to reproduce and some of the offspring are surprise resistant to the medicine that killed their predecessors. Some weren't, but they didn't make it, leaving only the resistant individuals left. Traits are passed down, their offspring will inherit these traits of resistance.
#23 to #14 - quentai (10/20/2012) [-]
I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm accusing you of ignorance.
#22 to #14 - quentai (10/20/2012) [-]
Basically, evolution is the theory that a life form can naturally take completely new external information into its genes that tells it how to bring about a complicated new characteristic that it never had before. Natural selection is the natural ability of a life form to use the variations it already has in its genetic code to bring about changes within the same kind of life form. Dog breeding is the perfect example of this natural selection where dogs can be bred for a specific climate or specific purpose, like hunting.

Not the same thing.
User avatar #24 to #22 - atrocitustheking (10/20/2012) [-]
I suspect your use of the phrase "kind", refers to the passage that reads: "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. " (Genesis 1:12, New International Version) and the same phrasing is used for the "great creatures of the sea and every winged bird" (Gen 1:21 NIV), and the "creatures that move along the ground" (Gen 1:24 NIV) and the "wild animals" (Gen 1:25 NIV)?

This never-defined phrase of "Biblical Kinds", which many scientists have searched for in the past (and never found) has no scientific meaning and isn't used. Animals are grouped using a modified version of the Linnean system of taxonomy.

Genes can and do "add information" as you put it. Seriously, I've listened to every freaking argument for and against evolution for years and years, weighing the evidence. For a few months I'd even resigned and thought Creationism was right, but the more I learned about both subjects (religion/theology as well as evolutionary biology) the more I saw that one: evolution is not incompatible with a belief in the Christian understanding of God, and two: that evolution is not only the more likely, but among the best supported scientific theorems that science has come up with.

No, not everyone accepted it at first when Darwin first came up with it, but as the years went on, evidence mounted (and continues to mount) until it was no longer reasonable to doubt. Theories are predictive models, formulas for finding equations, then you look at nature and if your predictions are right, then the idea that "hey this thing works" becomes more accepted. Evolution has been understood and used for over a century now, people don't use something that doesn't work. The predictive model that is the Theory of Evolution has produced results that are identical to those seen in the reality time and time again.
#26 to #24 - quentai (10/20/2012) [-]
"Kind" refers to what can breed with each other.
User avatar #30 to #26 - atrocitustheking (10/20/2012) [-]
Anything can breed with almost anything... although I suspect you mean "and produce offspring". In that case we already have the term species. Well, actually, no, that can't be correct because donkeys and horses can breed... though the offspring is sterile. I guess I'll have to admit a certain knowledge gap here as to the definition...

You brought up dog breeding, you realize that the fact that all those breeds came from one species (canis lupis) IS evolution? Different populations exhibiting different characteristics.

Look, science doesn't just pull stuff out of its collective rear-end, their work is only as useful as the results it produces. If it doesn't work, it's not used.
Back when it was new and untested, not everyone accepted it, when Darwin first came up with it, but as the years went on, evidence mounted (and continues to mount) until it was beyond reasonable doubt.

Theories are predictive models, you look at nature and if your predictions are right, then the idea that "hey this thing works" becomes more accepted. Evolution has been understood and used for over a century now, scientists, and people in general, don't use something that doesn't work. Nobody with half a brain uses a broken hammer to pound nails. The predictive model that is the Theory of Evolution has produced results that are then are also seen in reality time and time again.

If you don't believe me, Google it, evidence for evolution, there's tons of it, more than I could ever copy/paste for you here!
#40 to #30 - quentai (10/24/2012) [-]
It's natural selection, not Evolution.
You're obviously of far too low intellect as to understand properly the difference, so I'll stop replying to you.

Good day, sir.
User avatar #41 to #40 - atrocitustheking (10/24/2012) [-]
At this point it doesn't even matter, I don't think either of us was willing to change our positions anyway, so perhaps it was pointless to even have this debate.

Oh well, perhaps someone else learned something from this debate.
 Friends (0)