Philosoraptor

Philosoraptor Meme | IF EVERYTHING EVOLVED FROM AMOEBAS WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAS | image tagged in memes,philosoraptor | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
5,283 views, 89 upvotes, Made by Jying 22 months ago memesphilosoraptor
Philosoraptor memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
[deleted]
20 ups, 2 replies
Futurama Fry Meme | AMERICANS CAME FROM THE BRITISH SO HOW ARE THERE STILL BRITISH PEOPLE?! | image tagged in memes,futurama fry | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
9 ups, 4 replies
Picard Wtf Meme | IF AFRICA IS THE CRADLE OF LIFE HOW ARE THERE WHITE PEOPLE | image tagged in memes,picard wtf | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
15 ups, 2 replies
Picard Wtf Meme | I THINK THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS SOME PEOPLE IN AFRICA WERE TERRIBLE AT DANCING SO THEY WERE BANISHED TO THE FROSTY NORTHERN REGIONS WHERE THEY | image tagged in memes,picard wtf | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
You are bad! LOL!
reply
2 ups
too dank to live with it | WHOAH! YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND | image tagged in too dank to live with it | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Matrix Morpheus Meme | WHAT IF I TOLD YOU NEANDERTHALS HAD SEX WITH HUMANS | image tagged in memes,matrix morpheus | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups
THIS FEMALE SO EASY A CAVEMAN CAN DO IT | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
Environment changes dna
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
No it doesn't... Lol.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Yes it does ...lol
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
So sun bathing could make me a 6 foot asian?! Please, you must share your discovery with the world! Lol..

Please, feel free to elaborate.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
Evolution changes much in a living thing. Centuries of living in the ice age limited the production of Melanin which cause the skin to darken so people evolved with lighter skin. It's easy science that anyone can find if you care to look.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 3 replies
No, but it could give you cancer. Which is a genetic alteration/mutation. And that's just the short term genetic effect.

So yeah.

You're an idiot.

Go fry yourself in the sun and do the world a favor. Hopefully you haven't passed your awful genes to an offspring already.
reply
8 ups
No need to get nasty
reply
9 ups, 3 replies
Lol, you know nothing about what you're talking about, so I'm not going to continue arguing with you because you have already shut your mind to outside opinions and convinced yourself that you're right and everyone else is an idiot.

Also, thanks for the compliment! I really do appreciate it when a troll calls me an idiot because it shows I've beaten them at their own game. Thanks bro! ;D
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
Funny thing is I know exactly what I'm talking about.
reply
10 ups
LOL! You're a funny dude! You should make a meme about yourself xD
reply
3 ups
Yeah, and when H2O points out how your line of thinking seems to him, who is the one blowing up? LOL
reply
3 ups
He goes against your comment and multiple people jump on the bandwagon and freakin' burn him with nasty comments about him and not addressing their line of thinking.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
LOL! Best comment I've read all day! H2O is one of the most annoying of the assclown top users. He's one of raydogs little followers he likes to defend anything he does.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
A true bozo. He gets schooled and refuses to admit it.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Yup! Such a moron. They do that kind of stuff all the time! LOL! They can't take it when people like us show them they're wrong, they just call us trolls!
3 ups
Nothing against you, but these comments make it look like DownvoteFairy uses other accounts.
3 ups
I don't think it's a good idea to make general statements about a group of users based on an experience you've had with one of them.
reply
1 up
Yes it does. LOL
reply
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
I'm and American and My parents came from Switzerland!... You racist scumbag!... (joke) get it? I am being politically correct... Ha, ha, ha!
reply
2 ups
Wow! thats really cool, robbiehurz!
reply
11 ups, 2 replies
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups
Hahaha nice!
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
10 ups
reply
6 ups
If Americans came from Europeans why are there still Europeans? That's about how smart a dinosaur is.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
6 ups
reply
1 up
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
They didn't stop evolving. Evolution happens on a very slow timescale. Also, humans didn't come from any species of ape that exists today. We share a common ancestor with modern apes. Just like you didn't evolve from your sibling. You share parents in common with them.
reply
5 ups, 7 replies
Okay, maybe tge better question is; Why haven't we documented anything evolving for the past several hundred years. If you have/know of any such evidence (Or articles documenting such) I would be genuinely glad to see it.
reply
5 ups
Well for one, an increasing number of humans are being born without wisdom teeth. This results from smaller mouths, which in turn resulted from our modern cooking and eating practices. The trait of a smaller mouth no longer creates a "survival rate penalty" the way it would have for pre-historic people, our hominid ancestors, or other primates.

Want more evidence? You're sitting on it. Your coccyx took the form of a tail when you were just an embryo, in the same way as those of other primates. Like chimpanzees and unlike monkeys, it degenerated during gestation until it fused into a few useless vertebrae at the bottom of your spine. Since they incur no penalty on survival rate, this is one of many useless physical traits that have yet to disappear from the human phenotype.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Try hitting YouTube and look for Richard Dawkins explaining the evolution of the eye. Or the sub-laryngeal nerve (present in all mammals). They are both excellent examples.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'll do that if you go to Answersingenesis.org.
reply
4 ups
You asked for a reference. I've survived several indoctrination attempts. Including my first 15 years of life. You are commenting a lot with a lot of other users so I understand how hard it is to keep them straight. But in one comment you said you weren't interested in looking for the proof and in another you asked for a citation. Don't bother looking because I know you don't want to, but trust me; my lack of faith in religion does not come from lack of exposure.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I would also recommend a number of YouTubers who are good at breaking this stuff down into easier-to-understand language (and I mean no disrespect to H2O when I say that, since I'm a layperson myself when it comes to this stuff). AronRa, potholer54, ExtantDodo, and others
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
OK but Dawkins is a true authority. A professor of evolutionary biology. And very easy to follow.
reply
3 ups
Agreed
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Google is your friend.
reply
5 ups, 4 replies
His theory. Let him prove it. I'm not wasting my time and energy to find something that I personally don't even belive exists.
reply
3 ups
wait... you don't believe evolution exists, but there is more proof of evolution than religious deities.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Then how did your parents bring you to Jeebus?
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Lol it's people like you who only re-affirm my faith. Lol, "Jerbus"! Lickily for you, Jesus doesn't hold grudges. I'll add you to my prayer list ;D
reply
5 ups
And "lickily" is my new favorite word. Sometimes typos are better than the real thing.
reply
4 ups
* Jeebus.

And my point was; you were told the religious myth that you now believe. After that you decided to stop seeking evidence of things you don't believe are true. Only religion tells you to stop looking elsewhere for answers. The last thing they want is for you to enlighten yourself, because they want to be your enlightenment.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Run away, brave Sir Robin.
reply
4 ups
LOL, You're a funny guy! ;D
reply
5 ups
Read the whole comment, brainiac. I said if it's his theory, let HIM prove it. Why am I going to google something to prove a point I don't agree with? If anything, it's not going to be a very objective search. You would make a pretty bad teacher yourself; You'd have everyone else research your beliefs for you! LOL! But hey, whatever floats your boat bro.
reply
1 up
Haha so true! Lol!
reply
3 ups
we probably have, but not everything is found in one place, also evolution takes more than a hundred years, thats only like 2-3 generations for most large mammals, and it would take at least 10 generations to actually notice a difference.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
We have. http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
That's just an example of natural selection, not one species transforming into another.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Natural selection IS evolution. "Transformation" does not occur in nature. Over millenia natural selection presents itself as evolution.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Natural selection is not evolution; It's just a difference in genetics between offspring of a species; For instance, a black fox would be much less likely to survive in the arctic as opposed to it's albino brother. However, said black fox would do much better in a jungle, whereas it's albino brother would be easy to spot by predators.

That is natural selection. Evolution assumes that said species' DNA mutates allowing it to gain/dispose features that would help/harm itself. Evolution would be the black fox gaining an ability to protect itself from predators spotting it in the white snow; as an example, perhaps the ability to inject venom when they bite another animal (Purely an example there, not saying that its true).
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
But it's DNA mutations which give some offspring different traits which help or hurt their chances of survival. A mutation like lighter fur or darker fur, etc. that gives that animal a greater chance of survival will then be passed down to future offspring, permeating the gene pool through successive generations. 500 generations later the population will likely be much different due to this process. This is natural selection, and it is also evolution.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Unfortunately I'll have to disregard that since you haven't researched the subject. Also, mutations are almost always harmful to an animal (This has been observed and thoroughly documented). Even Evolutionists agree with that. Their point is that over so many billions (Or is it trillions now?) all of the species eventually stumbled upon just the right sequences of mutations.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You disregard what I say because I haven't researched the subject thoroughly, but a biologist will tell you the very same thing.

Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful. Some are harmful. Some are beneficial.

There is no "right" sequence of mutations. Things just happened to turn out the way they did. Some animals have gone extinct because they couldn't adapt to their environment; some have adapted and survived. There is no master plan that nature is following, with some grand end result in mind.
1 up
natural selection is genetic traits. basic biology. Punnet square stuff
1 up
1. You can't argue this topic since you claim you haven't researched it enough to provide evidence backing up your opinion
2. This is shown by your belief of mutations; Mutations are nearly always harmful, as I have stated, and even evolutionary scientists agree. Their theory is that over a very long period of time the mutations eventually started working together.
3. They have to have all worked together; What about the eye? What use would an eye be until fully evolved? Why would natural selection pick the creature with a useless soon-to-be eye over an animal that also had no eye? Why would it continue to do so until the eye was fully evolved?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Yes. Dawkins explains, as all scientists understand, that all mutations are random. The fact that some mutations allow the species to survive or reproduce at a greater rate causes evolution to improve the species. Evolution is not a force. It is an explanation of long term changes seen in species due to improved rate of survival. Intelligent design does not exist. Change is random in individuals and those individuals survive at a greater rate and thusly the species evolves. If you can't or won't accept the scientific method of evolution, then nothing else I say will help you. I wish you the best and hope you can one day see life through eyes untainted by dogma.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yes it is obvious neither one of us is going to convince the other of our position. I wish you a nice day and hope you too can one day see this through eyes untainted by atheist view points.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The beauty is that atheism is the lack of a lens so no tinting can occur.
3 ups
Even though I'm an atheist I would have to disagree with that, simply because as humans, it's pretty much impossible for a person to 100% lack some sort of mental filter that affects how they view the world.
reply
1 up
You just described how evolution works.

Through natural selection, a creature more fit for survival is able to pass their traits along to their offspring. As this happens millions upon millions of times, more complicated and varied species come into being.

This can be viewed in nearly any species of animal or plant.

Contrary to some people's belief, not all of a single species will change at the same time. This fact can easily be shown in the varied appearance of human beings around the world. What traits have been advantageous in one part of the world have not be advantageous in other parts.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yes, that proves natural selection. However, it does not prove evolution exists. The genetic trait of peppered moths are in the peppered moths. Given that the black moths have a shorter life span because they are getting eaten, they may not have the opportunity to spread their genetics, therefore the genetic trait of peppered wings is dominant over black wings. After, when the smoke blackened the environment, it is safe to assume that what I said previous is true. Simply switch the peppered wing trait with the solid black wing trait. There you go. LOL
reply
3 ups
LOL? Of course you're taking it seriously. But; what you describe is evolution. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept that you understand the concept but refuse the definition of the word. It's like saying "I'm not a prostitute, I just f**k for money". But that's what religion does. Sorry that you don't see it.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
In the Galapagos Islands there a few species of finches that have common DNA but slightly different beak structures determined by which food is more abundant on their particular island. Evolution in 3D.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
That's not evolving into a new species, and Darwin rescinded those theories.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
What do you consider a new species?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Personally I think each species was designed. Therefore it is up to YOU to define what a 'new' species is since it is YOUR belief that we came about as a result of an ancient ancestor evolving into multiple 'new' species.
reply
1 up
This is a logical fallacy known as Burdon of Proof.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Please understand that when you make a claim, it is not on your opponent to disprove your statement, it is on you to prove your statement.
reply
3 ups
You are absolutely wrong. But if you don't believe it exists and refuse to look for it you will of course never be anything but wrong.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Scientists have observed speciation in nature and in the laboratory. But like I said, evolution usually doesn't happen within a human lifetime, so we don't observe it easily, if at all. It's like any other incredibly slow natural process like continental drift or mountains being pushed up. I get what you're saying about how we can't see it so how do we know it happens. But we have ways of studying it :)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
We have ways of documenting stuff too, i.e. books. Why has nobody documented a species pphysically changing into a different one, at least over the past 400 years?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
We have. It's in the scientific literature. I'm unable to give a specific journal or paper, because I haven't researched the subject as much as an actual scientist, but if you ask a biologist, they would be happy to provide documented examples
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Uh yeah you can't claim that there is evidence somewhere, then when asked for it say you haven't researched the subject enough.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Of course I can, because I pointed you to people who know more about the subject than I do and who can provide you with the resources you asked for. That's like me telling you that George Washington lived from 1732 to 1799. I didn't do the research myself to find that out, but real historians have.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
No, you made a claim (It's in scientific literature), then when I asked you to point me to said scientific literature, you said to ask a biologist because they would know more. That's like me claiming there is evidence of Big foot, then telling you to go ask Cliff Barackman when you asked me for a citation.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"these people I speak of" are biologists, and they work at universities and colleges around the country and around the world. If you go to your nearest university you will find them and can talk with them face-to-face. You might even persuade them to show you the laboratory and equipment they use to study biology and evolution. It's not hidden in some secret underground vault next to KFC's list of herbs and spices. It's all there in the open if you take a little time.
2 ups
Yes but I could easily go to a creationist who would disagree with your POV. I'm asking for hard evidence, not people who will share their slanted opinions. (Creationists or Evolutionists)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You asked for resources, and I pointed you to the people who have those resources :)
2 ups
The fact is, your viewpoint is wrong, so I won't find these people you speak of.
reply
1 up
Yes, a creationist will disagree with my POV. That in itself proves or disproves nothing. The hard evidence is there. Fossils, geologic strata, equipment and machines which can tell you how old fossils and rock layers are, machines which can analyze DNA and all sorts of other things. Yes, it is complicated. But scientists can explain it to you.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Directly from the first Google Search result for "human evolution"

Natural selection still affects modern human populations. For example, the population at risk of the severe debilitating disease kuru has significant over-representation of an immune variant of the prion protein gene G127V versus non-immune alleles. The frequency of this genetic variant is due to the survival of immune persons. Other reported trends appear to include lengthening of the human reproductive period and reduction in cholesterol levels, blood glucose and blood pressure in some populations .

It has been argued that human evolution has accelerated since the development of agriculture and civilization some 10,000 years ago, resulting, it is claimed, in substantial genetic differences between different current human populations. Lactase persistence is an example of such recent evolution. Recent human evolution seems to have been largely confined to genetic resistance to infectious disease that have appeared in human populations by crossing the species barrier from domesticated animals.

It is a common misconception that humans have stopped evolving and current genetic changes are purely genetic drift. Although selection pressure on some traits has decreased in modern human life (for instance, we are no longer evolving to survive smallpox), humans are still undergoing natural selection for many other traits (for instance, menopause is evolving to occur later).
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Again, natural selection, not actual evolution. Bacteria develop resistance to anti-biotics because there is always a mutant one out several trillion. Bacteria are single celled organisms and yet they haven't evolved into anything beyond that yet. Natural selection is being confused with evolution here.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Natural selection is the mechanism through which large-scale evolution occurs. Artificial selection does this as well, as we see with our hundreds upon hundreds of domestic animal breeds. If any population of said breeds were isolated for an extended period of time (perhaps a few thousand years), the genetic drift would produce organisms that are genetically incompatible with their very distant relatives from whom they were isolated. Viola! Evolution through natural (or artificial) selection.

P.S. Bacteria being single-celled brings an evolutionary advantage: they are able to reproduce and adapt to new environments (evolve) extremely quickly.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
reply
0 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm not going to continue discussing this since you clearly don't understand the difference between natural selection and evolution. Nice speaking with you though, I do appreciate debating with someone who doesn't rely on calling me a "poo poo dunderhead" when we disagree.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Perhaps this will help: Directly from the first Google Search result for "Natural selection"

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It the most important mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection"; he compared it with artificial selection (selective breeding).

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and offspring can inherit such mutations. Throughout the lives of the individuals, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore, the population evolves.
reply
2 ups
I'll re-write this since you seem to have mis-read it:
---
I'm not going to continue discussing this since you clearly don't understand the difference between natural selection and evolution. Nice speaking with you though, I do appreciate debating with someone who doesn't rely on calling me a "poo poo dunderhead" when we disagree.
reply
1 up
How can I put this in another way...

If evolution is a road that represents 1,000 generations of an animal down a single highway, something needs to determine that the offspring (each generation) survives and develops new traits to pass on to the next generation.

Natural selection is something like the car that is driving down that road. It in itself is not evolution, but as it passes by 1,000 generations (and 1,000 to the 1,000th power of parents combining genes through their own genetic roads), something different from the point of origin is achieved.

The word evolution is used to explain that a wolf doesn't suddenly become a great dane; it takes many generations. Those generations are so varied, and the pool that they come from are so vast, that it is only possible to view the changes over large gaps of time.

Wolf - 1000 generations later - Dog.

The road to get there was very long indeed and natural selection is the vehicle that made it possible.

PBS has done a very good documentary on the subject. You can read the overview on their site at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
That's funny!
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Thanks! I couldn't believe that someone didn't beat me to such a simple comment!

I had to read through all the religious/science/pseudo science to make sure someone hadn't already done it.

But, I guess any comments are good comments, they help make front page memes. Great meme, glad that you liked my comment, I USUALLY prefer to go for the laugh rather than a trollish debate. Too much seriousness in the real world, I come here for humor.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
5 ups
There are dogs
And still wolves
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
It's simple really
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Exactly! And if people evolved from monkeys, then how are there still monkeys?
reply
3 ups
And if Americans came from Europeans why are there still Europeans?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Humans didn't evolve from any species of ape that exists today. We share a common ancestor with modern apes.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Hey speak for yourself monkey girl!
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I'm a guy. And I'm a primate like all humans.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
sorry sir... However... I am a human with no monkey in my gene pool... so... speak for yourself... with all due respect.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Yes you are a human. And you are related, to varying degrees, to every other living thing on this planet through common descent.

Also, no offense taken. You aren't the first person to think I'm a girl because of my username.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
Every creature was created by God and designed by Him... That's what I believe... you believe that everything came about by chance... Good luck with that... Get it?... Good luck with that? It's a joke...
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
As a believer, what do you think about mental disorders and mutations?
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
Mental disorders and mutations are a result of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden and God's curse upon the earth... all the disease, wars, hatred, sin comes from that one event recorded in Genesis Chapter 3 (KJV) God will restore all things in the future and has made it possible for everyone to be saved from this evil world by believing the Gospel as revealed to Paul in the epistles of Romans through Philemon. The Gospel that will save us is summed up in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Check it out. It is good news.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Thanks, but I know that, I studied the bible myself. God is good, right? Then why does he allow this to exist - http://www.killsometime.com/content/pictures/files/14331.jpg What's the argument for ruining people's lives? As a believer, how do you explain that some people are born deformed (midgets, siamese twins you name it) As our creator isn't he responsible for our welfare and equal opportunity to enjoy life for everyone? Human body, being a complex machine is bound to malfunction, but why does he not control the development of every fetus, that would be fair, wouldn't it?
reply
[deleted]
1 up
it makes no sense that some suffer a bit more because of that fall.
reply
2 ups
I don't believe everything came about by chance. Some things happen by chance (such as genetic mutations). Other things happen as a direct result of previous events. But chance has boundaries. If you drop three rubber balls on the floor, they will bounce back up within a certain range of height. You won't see two of them bounce one foot in the air and the third one fly across town.
reply
2 ups
The only thing I have in common with every other living thing on this planet is the fact God made me.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Before I begin, I would like to call out some of my fellow atheists in being utter twats. FFS, learn to convince someone without being jerks, ok? (Shout out to Invicita for getting that through my thick head XD)
Land and water animals on Earth evolved from amoebas. Not all amoebas became land and water animals on Earth. Besides, we should first blame bacteria. They were before amoebas.
To get a better understanding of evolution, check around here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Jying, I saw you link to this website: Answersingenesis.org.
So I checked it out. The results were.. interesting. For some reason, they believe that bird species split into two to account for all the species today (that were not on the ark), but deny evolution, when that point is the basic definition of evolution! They also round up to do this, which is not exactly very scientific. (Source: https://answersingenesis.org/birds/bird-speciation-flood-present/)
Another good point brought up (though in a less.. cordial manner) was dogs. Dog breeds can be made in decades, fairly easily, by selective breeding. Please, explain how that works without evolution.

Now, a little something from my own opinions:
There might be a God. However, there IS evolution. From everything I know, I'd like to say if there is a God, he probably just set the ball rolling for evolution and life on Earth. Of course, unless someone can prove in his existence, I will deny there is a God. We have proof for evolution, but not really any for God beyond anecdotal, and that isn't worth anything without some cold hard evidence behind it.
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Thanks for the intelligent politely worded way you made your point. I simply thought this post might invoke some interesting conversations. When it comes to my beliefs, I think there are things in this world we are either not ready to know or haven't figured out yet on our own. So I try to find out as much as I can about both sides, because knowledge of something should be vital to your decision on which you believe in. Did God create animals that evolve? Did animals evolve into humans that need a God? Was the earth terraformed and seeded like what some want to do to Mars? If we create life on another planet are we it's Gods? So many great questions out there without answers, can create so many interesting conversations. Knowledge can't be found unless you are looking for it.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Once again, my education in this type of arguing and proper etiquette can be attributed to Invicita. He and I may oppose viewpoints, but we can argue without throwing insults. He really is good too, if he managed to get that point hammered through my then-closed mind. :D
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
He helped me out a lot when I first started :)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I don't see him around much, anymore, tho ;.;
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I think he travels a lot....
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups
*concurs enthusiastically*
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The problem becomes compounded when you realize that "life form" itself becomes very murky when you get to that level of the discussion. What exactly qualifies as a "life form"? (I'm asking rhetorically)
reply
0 ups
The current definition is that organisms ("life forms") maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.

Under this definition, entities like viruses and prions aren't truly "living," and the determination of whether they are "living" is a subject of much discussion among biologists. Some favor expanding the definition of "life" to include these, but others point out that they are so fundamentally different from such entities as bacteria and protists that they favor a new classification altogether.
reply
2 ups
because knowledge
reply
2 ups
[Heavy Controlled Breathing] Don't answer... Its retorical [Heavy Controlled Breathing]
reply
3 ups
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 4 replies
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Hold up. Since when is evolution a religion? It's a scientific theory, sir. :/
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
No, people believe in evolution by faith... they can't see it... They base there whole life view point on the fact that everything came from nothing and nothing became something and gives the appearance of created design... it's a religion. Denial is the friend of the evolutionist... Denies a creator while talking about creation. Denies a designer while talking about design... It's a fool's theory.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Show me where we talk about "creation" and "design" in evolution. I don't see it. Besides, creationists believe something came from nothing, so regardless, that point is moot.
Also, always upvote when you reply. it's common Imgflip courtesy ;)
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
No we creationists don't believe that everything came from nothing. Creationists believe everything came from Almighty God who has always existed... God simply is... He wasn't created that's why He is God. Athiest Richard Dawkins has stated that things give the appearance of design and then talks about the amazing scientific laws of chemistry in creation... design and creation are givens... just as the fact that you exist is a given... Denying that there is a God who created and designed everything is the ultimate act of foolishness and denial. God is self evident in creation itself. Man can either deny it or accept it... that is the God given choice we all have.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
Remember the rule... upvote and reply. There is only one upvote on the comment you rplied to, sir. Where is the other one? If these creationists you look down upon can do it, so can you.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Well... at least you are man enough to admit it...there is hope for you bro!
reply
2 ups
You do realize that he's being a sarcastic jerk, right? :/
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
You look down on atheists for 'believing' "everything came from nothing", but you believe God simply existed, and then created... everything out of nothing? I'm sorry, but you seem to not understand the irony here.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
It's not a matter of looking up or looking down on atheists it's simply the truth.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

God has no beginning and no end... That is why He is God and we are not... He is the Creator and we are His Creation. Our approval or belief is not required for this to be the truth... there is no irony there.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
You find it ridiculous that atheists say that everything was created from nothing.
You then say God has always existed, and that he created heaven and Earth... from nothing.
And God came from... nothing. He always was.
Yup, still pretty ironic.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
They fail to realize how wonderfully convenient their belief is.

"Everything requires a creator"
"Okay, then, who made God?"
"God doesn't require a creator"

It's an obvious case of special pleading. They say that every complex thing requires a creator, yet God, who is supposedly the most complex being in existence, somehow doesn't. It allows them to wiggle free when their own argument has them backed into a corner.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Just like the Big Bang.
"If it wasn't God, what was it?"
"An explosion"
"What exploded?"
"Stuff"
"Where did it come from?"
"It always existed"

Fail.
2 ups
1) 0 Ups, 1 Reply. Remember Imgflip etiquette, please.
2) Change "stuff" to "hydrogen" and yeah, pretty much the Big Bang Theory
3) The Big Bang theory may have been disproved, after all. Unfortunately for you, not by God. You can read about it here: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
1 up
We know that matter can't be created or destroyed, so the matter that exists today has always existed.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
What is ironic is the fact that atheistic evolutionists believe that no intelligence is required in an obviously created and designed universe... God is the first cause think about it... I am finished... the discussion can go on forever... or at least until we all give an account to our Creator...

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

This is inevitable...
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Please, do tell me how the universe is obviously a created and designed universe. I see a hodgepodge that forms a picture when put together, like abstract art. The rest is left to interpretation. You interpret it as an intelligently designed universe ruled by the one true God. I see it as an interesting accident.

Also, the bible's passages which you have thrown out as some attempt at argument serve no purpose here. They are simply random bits of scripture with no meaning or reason in this context.
[deleted]
2 ups
I can't explain the obvious to a person that views the Universe... "an interesting accident"... That's a view point that is too far gone for me...

As far as scripture posting goes... that is up to me... you can take it or leave it... that is up to you...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
(I am replying to your earlier post because we have reached the limit for the comment chain)
I am open to any viewpoint. I would like to hear how you think. If my ideas are "too far gone", then maybe it is you who has the closed mind, not me.
Also, one learns that in debate, you don't include useless, extraneous details, like random scripture. Food for thought, is all.
3 ups
You made some very excellent points in your discussion with him :)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
FYI, God made the stars to amaze us. To show us his glory and power
reply
0 ups
Oh, the stars certainly are amazing. That much is clear. But the process of how stars are made is a bit more...........mundane than that.
reply
3 ups
You'd be just as wrong as all the other Jesus-shouters.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
It's just something that TrollGuy says. It's not "my idea" if you know what I'm trying to get at.

Cheers!
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
maybe there is still something thats going to evolve and turn into pokemon
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
This illustration seals the deal for me: [possible DNA permutations] ÷ [seconds in 4.5 billion years] = DNA permutations per second to produce a modern human being.

No. of possible human DNA combinations:

d = 1.6x10^12,041

No. of seconds in 4.5 billion years:

t = 1.420092x10^17

d/t = 1.1266875667x
10^12,024

That is the approx number of iterations per second for evolution, starting on day one 4.5 billion years ago, to resolve a modern human being.

Universe contains:
3x10^52 kg of matter

That is only the DNA molecule, not tissue, bone, organs, processes, and just 1 species among over 20 million. This isn't to say evolution is purely linear, rather it suggests a "scope of problem" too exponentially complex for 4.5 billion years. And remember...evolutionists say it took only 70 million years.
reply
2 ups
I have absolutely no idea or what that means, and I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it, but I absolutely love the logic behind it. I'm glad that someone actually has a logic behind it instead of the normal BS. It's a neat idea to put math behind mutations. I got a lot of respect for you. :)
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Where did you get the "d" figure from?
reply
1 up
There are various estimates available online. I grabbed one that included alleles, but any of the numbers (estimates) generate a rate of development embarassingly faster than the speed of light.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
This site has the value I used along with limited discussion on a layperson's level (which is my level). This could be the site I used but it's been several years and, as I recall, I adapted this approach from another social media web site.

Please let me know if the math is off. I'm not a crusader on the topic.
reply
1 up
I think you forgot to include the link. I don't see a URL anywhere. :-)
reply
1 up
Forgot the site...
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080218055914AA66P9r
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It's important to remember that there are a lot of "invalid" DNA combinations. Ones that lead to genetic disorders. In fact, this is the #1 reason for spontaneous abortion in humans: the fetus is not viable due to some kind of genetic defect. Out of all the possible DNA combinations, only a fraction can produce healthy (or at least viable) offspring. This applies to every species regardless of the specifics of the reproduction process, from the most simplistic bacteria to the most complex organisms on Earth (or, presumably, the Universe).

Another thing: The reference to the amount of mass in the universe isn't there to say that the current evolutionary model is unworkable, or implausible. It's just there to show how big the number of DNA combinations really is.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Indeed. Plus we also know that there are billions of healthy modern permutations possible, so a purely linear process is off the table. But at even the unbelievable rate illustrated, throttling it back to, say, 1 mutation per day, month, or year is still more rapid by orders of magnitude than what evolutionists conceive.
reply
0 ups
Perhaps multiple origins? If the chemistry of the ancient oceans was right to create ONE organism, it's likely that dozens, hundreds, or thousands came into existence at about the same time. In fact, I'd be very surprised if it DIDN'T happen this way.
reply
3 ups
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
1. It's not silly to believe that small changes accumulating over long periods of time result in large changes. That's like saying you can walk across the street, but it's physically impossible to walk across the country.

2. You say God created everything. The Bible says he created everything out of nothing. Have you ever seen something come into existence out of nothing by his handiwork?
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
1. Even an evolutionist calls what they see around them "creation"... without a creator? and science is supposed to be based on observable evidence... Evolution is based on faith there is NO observable evidence that man slowly evolved from a common ancestor from monkeys... and your "walking across the street and walking across the country example is a poor one... at best...

2. I wasn't present when God created everything... and you weren't present at the Big Bang... number one because there never was a big bang and two you believe that it happened by your religious faith... What I believe is way more credible than what you believe...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I forgot to ask you yesterday, but why is my walking across the street versus walking across the country example a poor one?
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Because although walking across the street is shorter than walking across the country as far as time goes... It's still you walking... You're not evolving into something else.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
But the mechanism for small genetic changes is the same one that creates large genetic changes. The only difference is time scale. When two populations that could once interbreed can no longer interbreed due to accumulated genetic changes, you have a new species. That's all a species is: a population of things which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
There are big horses and small horses. There are Black horses and white horses... But they're all still horses... No one has ever observed a horse become a cow... that's not how it works...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
1. I don't hear evolutionary biologists use the term "creation", and if they do, that doesn't imply they believe in a creator. Just like someone can say "by Jove", that doesn't mean they secretly believe in Zeus (Jupiter).

2. If there wasn't a massive cosmic expansion (the Big Bang), then why does all the evidence point to an expanding universe? That's all the Big Bang was, matter expanding outward from the singularity. I believe it happened in the sense that I can't prove it 100%, that doesn't make it on par with religious faith, which by its very nature usually tumbles to a much lower degree of certainty.

Just because what you believe requires less examination or thinking (no offense), doesn't make it more credible. I don't mean to be rude by saying that, but it's honestly how I view the issue.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
The Big Bang requires the same amount of thinking that Creationism does. We say God created something out of nothing, you guys say nothing created something out of nothing.

In any case, neither can be proven because we can't reproduce the conditions under controlled and observable circumstances. In reality, whatever you choose to believe requires blind faith.
reply
3 ups
The Big Bang theory doesn't say that nothing created something out of nothing. There wasn't "nothing". There was a singularity, which contained all the matter and energy in existence (from my understanding). This singularity then expanded at the moment of the BB, and it continues to expand at this moment. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so the matter that exists today existed back then, possibly in a different state, but it existed nonetheless. Lawrence Krauss uses the term "nothing", but not in the same sense.
reply
1 up
New evidence has produced a new model of the universe that removes the big bang entirely. This here is worth a read: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
reply
1 up
"Isn't that a blow mind"?
reply
2 ups
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 4 replies
But seriously... Evolution is more of a philosophy or religious belief... it certainly isn't true science. Where is the observable evidence?
reply
4 ups
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution#Evidence_for_evolution
reply
2 ups
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Your erroneous comment begs far too much contemplation of the failures of the education system. Evolution is a scientific theory derived from observed changes in traits of mutliple species in response to external environmental stimuli, among other things. It is, most certainly, NOT a philosophy but a scientific theory, which, I might add, has significant evidentiary basis for being accepted as observed fact.
reply
0 ups
You're sitting on it. Your coccyx is a vestigial tail, a useless remnant from a long-forgotten primate ancestor.
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
go back to school raptor, you flunked biology
reply
1 up
If people start out as pants pissing morons who can't even hold their heads up, why are there still babies being born as pants pissing morons who can't even hold their heads up? Your question makes no sense. But that may be because you are a ...... I can't, it's just too easy.
Flip Settings
Philosoraptor memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
IF EVERYTHING EVOLVED FROM AMOEBAS; WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back