Explaining the coriolis effect and then demonstrating it is always good for a laugh.Ask a Flat Earther to explain gravity and watch his head explode if YOU know the actual Law/Theory and explain it to him.
What's up with this "Flat Earth" nonsense gaining so much popularity?
- Thread starter acri1
- Start date
Agreed, I always say science explains god and god explains science. they go hand in hand.
However, darwinian evolution is such a ludicrous idea, its quite hilarious.
That angry dude is losing his mind attacking me, quite funny actually, while making zero points and not disputing anything I said
This dude said Natural Selection adds information because rats drink birds blood
Adding information, dumbass, would be a fish adding information to its DNA to make lungs instead of gills. That is IMPOSSIBLE. Never has been proven and never will be. Adaption is obviously true and evident, however, adaptation does not equate to darwinian evolution.
Again, read up on irreducible complexity. Completely nullifies darwinian evolution and it is PROVEN. Also, Lets not act like the Cambrian explosion doesnt exist either, and that also has been proven. Darwinian evolution, not adaptation, literally has zero evidence. But yeah keep the blind faith.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,105
- Daps
- 122,386
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
bigesco said:
That's a strawman, breh. The actual argument concerns whether evolution is 'guided' or not. The 'Darwinians' believe that it is 'unguided' and is fully explainable via 'naturalistic materialism'. The problem with their hypothesis is the time involved is untenable even given billions of years.
No it isnt. Im arguing the notion that we originated from fish, which is the accepted origin of man now. They claim thru Natural Selection, this process can happen. However, Natural Selection NEVER adds information, never ! And Mutations remove information, so tell me, how in the fukk can a fish develop lungs instead of gills? Its not possible. The whole time premise is weak also, since darwinian evolution should be all around us, half this half that. Animals evolving and experimenting and developing new organs, except that's obviously not happening and never will. Growing a longer beak is an example of adaptation, not darwinian evolution and doesnt explain the origin of species.
Evolutionists like to ignore things like irreducible complexity and the cambrian explosion even tho they are proven and accepted because it blows the whole idea of darwinian evolution out the water. They blindly follow an illogical theory and claim we cant prove it because we need billions of years
And they get super defensive about it like emotional bytches
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,105
- Daps
- 122,386
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
bigesco said:
Nah, breh. THAT is, indeed, a strawman. We share genetic similarities with fish just as we do with all other carbon-based life forms on this planet. That includes vegetation as well. We're actually 99% genetically similar to mice. Man, didn't originate with fish.
Where is the strawman? Im arguing against darwinian evolution, what is it that im deflecting ? I dont think you understand what strawman means.
Dont know where you got that 99% figure, since chimpanzees are our closest and they are at 98%. Again, check your facts.
However, Your DNA strand contains so much information, an astounding amount, that 2 % is a HUGE difference. The 50% we share and dont share with bananas for example is a MASSIVE difference. This argument is stupid if you know anything about DNA and genetics.
And you say man didnt originate from fish, but mainstream science says otherwise. Common ancestor. We all came from the same source. Through darwinian evolution apparently. Thru Natural Selection & Mutations, both of these never adding new information. Preposterous.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,105
- Daps
- 122,386
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
bigesco said:
.....I told you twice what the strawman was.'Darwinian Evolution' isn't the issue and never has been. 'Scientific Materialism' is the issue.
'Darwinian Evolution' isn't the issue and never has been. 'Scientific Materialism' is the issue.
Maybe not for you, but everyone else it is.
I jumped in this thread replying to someone else who was posting about evolution. Then u interjected. U strawmanned me
And obviously everybody else ran when they were confronted with tough questions and actual scientific proof disproving their fantastical theory Jack Trippa 3z company ho
Superstar
Fish-eye lens?
Without a doubt.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,062
- Reputation
- 8,105
- Daps
- 122,386
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
bigesco said:
Demonstrably false.
bigesco said:I jumped in this thread replying to someone else who was posting about evolution. Then u interjected. U strawmanned me
Breh, the strawman you keep presenting is that evolution is false given the evidence. THAT is the strawman.
Evolution isn't false.
The mechanism proposed by Darwinians for evolution, ie., 'purely naturalistic causes' is untenable and THAT is where the argument actually lies. It would take, mathematically, somewhere on the order of 4 billion+ years just for a single-celled organism to evolve into an earthworm using purely naturalistic causes. The paradigm Darwinians use to support their version of events is just not sufficient to explain what we see today. That paradigm, in the nutshell, is that material constrains information.
Evolution isn't false.
The mechanism proposed by Darwinians for evolution, ie., 'purely naturalistic causes' is untenable and THAT is where the argument actually lies. It would take, mathematically, somewhere on the order of 4 billion+ years just for a single-celled organism to evolve into an earthworm using purely naturalistic causes. The paradigm Darwinians use to support their version of events is just not sufficient to explain what we see today. That paradigm, in the nutshell, is that material constrains information.
Ive been saying im arguing against darwinian evolution, not sure how you missed that. If by evolution you mean adaptation then yes I already said adaptation is true and there is proof for it.
However, if you're claiming the majority of people dont think we came from chimps and fish then you are being delusional because the majority do.
Sensitive Christian Grey
The Fisher King
Fish-eye lens?
Cool pic
Fish-eye lens?
Of courser its a fish eye lens unless the Earth is the size of King Kai's planet
the fact that something this trivial can't be settled proves someone is hiding something
it should be nothing fly flat earthers outside the atmosphere and show them the Earth from space and let them record it themselves
I don't believe the Earth is flat, but I believe they are hiding something
It is settled, that's the thing. Unless you think every astronaut, pilot, sailor, explorer, and mathematician is lying. For over 2000 years.
Why don't the flat earthers pool their money or crowdfund for an expedition? Why can't they just take a ship and go to where these infamous ice walls are?