More lunacy from the Left.

More lunacy from the Left. |  SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT PROTESTERS ARE IMMUNE; FROM LAWS | image tagged in coronavirus,politics,political meme | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
1,409 views 68 upvotes Made by Pascalean 1 month ago in politics
Add Meme
Post Comment
Best first
122 Comments
reply
9 ups, 1m,
1 reply
GOV LIBTARD: PROTEST ALL YOU WANT.  JUST DON'T SING IN CHURCH. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 1m
preacher | WE'RE PROTESTING SIIIIIYUN!! | image tagged in preacher | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
6 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Again plain hypocrisy doesn’t need a spin. Anyone can see it here. Let’s hear from the science deniers on this one.
reply
4 ups, 1m,
1 reply
What does this have to do with evolution?
reply
4 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Simply that the virus transmission risk is unacceptable if you are gathering for fireworks but totally ok if you are protesting. The risk is the same because it is science. To say otherwise is to deny science and infer that the virus is aware of your intentions for gathering. It’s all good or it all isn’t . Science says it isn’t.
reply
4 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Oh you said science deniers, I thought you were talking about evolutionists. Sorry, my bad.
reply
4 ups, 1m,
1 reply
You're thinking of creationists
reply
3 ups, 1m,
5 replies
No evolutionists keep claiming their theory is fact, despite undeniable proof it isn't. Look up things like irreducible complexity, gene networks, protein networks, etc...etc... The REAL science is against them.
reply
2 ups, 1m,
3 replies
Creationists believe in only one type of evolution, and that’s microevolution. Microevolution leads to speciation and adaption to certain environments, yet animals do not turn into another animal. Microevolution means a fish’s skin will adapt to certain temperatures or deep water pressure over time, but it will still be a fish.

But macroevolution is very questionable. Macroevolution states that wolves turn into whales, therefore growing fins, losing 2 legs forming a tail fin, losing teeth and becoming baleen (some of them), losing all hair, ears, and noses, growing to a disproportionate size, and somehow gaining the ability to breathe out of its back. Millions of years can’t produce this.
reply
1 up, 1m
Just like I said, that article says nothing about modern day wolves being the ancestors of modern day whales. You're wrong.
reply
2 ups, 1m,
1 reply
That's hilarious! 'Microevolution'!

Creationism is such an absurd load of nonsense that you've had to concede that evolution happens, you are just being predictably pig-headed about to what extent. Nominative determinism in action.
reply
0 ups, 1m
Awesome. This completely changed my mind.

Now give me more than your cliche ad hominem that nearly every evolutionist will give.
reply
2 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Almost none of what you said was accurate. You clearly don't understand evolution
reply
1 up, 1m,
2 replies
Thank you for the deep, contextual, and knowledgeable statements proving me wrong. You’ve clearly beaten me in this argument.

And nope. Look it up. Evolutionists believe wolves are ancestors of whales. I can tell you more examples of so-called “macroevolution” if you would like.
reply
1 up, 1m
The closest you can come to that nonsense is when scientists had theorized that creodonts were the ancestors of cetaceans. Creodonts being the ancestors of carnivores, so somewhat wolf-like in appearance, but not wolves.

They've since realized that their ancestors are artiodactyla - you know the group that includes bovines, hogs, hippos, amongst others.
Incidentally, pigs used to be considered the closest relatives to hippos for obvious reasons (cladistically speaking). Genetic analysis has proven that wrong, since the closest relatve to hippos is cetaceans. In effect, hippopotamuses are a sort of land whale, kinda.

What milions of years hasn't produced is a giant warm blooded lactating fish that has the multi-chambered stomach of a ruminant and the brain and modified skeletal structure of a mammal down to the ear bones.
reply
1 up, 1m,
1 reply
You have a source for that? Which scientists believe that modern day wolves are ancestors of modern day whales?
0 ups, 1m
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

I shouldn’t even have to do this for you. You can just google “whale ancestors” and it will show you countless videos, images, and articles showing that wolves somehow turned into whales.
reply
2 ups, 1m
But still your comment was pretty off-topic. No matter the opinions of people like me or of them.
reply
4 ups, 1m,
3 replies
"No evolutionists keep claiming their theory is fact, despite undeniable proof it isn't. Look up things like irreducible complexity, gene networks, protein networks, etc...etc... The REAL science is against them."

Ha. No surprise you're some idiot creationist. Irreducible Complexity was debunked like 2 decades ago. "gene networks, protein networks" lol what? Genetics has proven evolution true without a shadow of a doubt.

Next you'll be talking about the Kalam-Cosmological Argument, even though it was invented by a Muslim to prove his stupid religion true.
reply
1 up, 1m,
1 reply
Aristotle first made this argument...800 +/- years before Islam was even founded. Fyi
reply
2 ups, 1m,
3 replies
And it was a lousy argument in his time as well
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
In his time (400 BC +/-) it was "the" argument. Others have only built on it. It literally calls for the Big Bang, a singular event in history that all other events stem from. Big Bang theory is still the predominant view of how everything at that point in time got started, so I wouldn't say it was a shit argument by any means. He only supposes, and I believe correctly, that the Big Bang or first event, needed a catalyst that wasn't itself caused by anything, because infinite regression is impossible. We know now, that he was correct.
1 up, 1m
Then what caused that catalyst?
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
"Then what caused the catalyst" The logic necessitates a catalyst, however, one must make a leap, or abandone logic, to label it as something. Anything beyond the beginning is a "belief" statement rather than a "knowledge" statement. Technically, I believe it's a non-sequitor. Bait someone else with that if you like.
1 up, 1m
I didn't bait anyone. You said a catalyst was needed for the Big Bang because an infinite regress is impossible, and I wanted to know what caused the catalyst
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
"I didn't bait anyone. You said a catalyst was needed for the Big Bang because an infinite regress is impossible, and I wanted to know what caused the catalyst"

Don't we all.
0 ups, 1m
So why say a catalyst is needed if you can't demonstrate it?
reply
0 ups, 1m
Your comment comparing biological evolution to linguistic evolution was excellent. I've also seen it compared to "show me the transitional form between (baby picture) and (same person as an adult)"
reply
0 ups, 1m,
2 replies
No, a few evolutionists said that an injection part of a bacteria looks similar to the motorized cilia, they didn't 'prove' anything. They failed to account for the missing parts or the fact that the injection part was hollow which could not be accounted for with the cilia.

And more insults. Look up gene networks and protein networks. You can remove things from them but the moment you add something the whole network is destroyed and the cell dies and then the entire creature dies. Genetics actually prove that creatures are not related to each other. Look it up. Educate yourself.

No, I have no truck with Muslims. I look at science and truth and follow that where it leads, and it leads away from evolution.
reply
1 up, 1m,
1 reply
"Every species came into existence about 200,000 years ago (according to radiometric dating)"

Yeah...no
reply
1 up, 1m,
1 reply
I was gonna respond to him saying that but I haven't stopped laughing yet.
0 ups, 1m
According to the mitochondria study and radio metric dating. Please learn science.
reply
1 up, 1m,
2 replies
"Genetics actually prove that creatures are not related to each other"

That is 100% ass backwards
reply
0 ups, 1m,
3 replies
Actually they did a comparative study if all the sequenced DNA in their database and found that something like 90% of living creatures today do not have a common ancestor. You can look it up.
0 ups, 1m
I doubt that. You have a source?
0 ups, 1m
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/04/new-genetic-study-seriously-challenges-darwins-theory-of-evolution/
replying to below.
0 ups, 1m
The short of it is: Every species came into existence about 200,000 years ago (according to radiometric dating) only 10% of species have common ancestors.
reply
0 ups, 1m
"So why say a catalyst is needed if you can't demonstrate it?"

Empirical data points to the need. Logic points to the need. Neither of those state the nature of what is needed, only the need. I can tell you all day long what the catalyst is, but I could never demonstrate it. I have my beliefs. You have yours. Unless they can be verified or falsified, they'll always be just that, beliefs. And that's ok.
reply
1 up, 1m,
3 replies
hahahaha! Look up the difference between theory and scientific theory.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
I believe the KJV is the inspired translation of God's word. So if you're talking about the NIV or versions similar to it I may have to agree with you, but I don't consider them as the Bible, so I guess I don't agree with you.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
6 replies
"In case you didn't realize, every belief (including those who don't hold to any religion) contains circular reasoning."

That's not true at all

"And by supernatural I mean supernatural claims. Which I believe to be untrue, except those found in the Bible."

So you're engaging in special pleading, which is another logical fallacy.
reply
0 ups, 4w,
1 reply
So you agree all worldviews are built on faith and beliefs? I mean, "Science can't know absolute truth."
1 up, 3w
Faith? No. Science is based on evidence and logical inference. Faith is what people use when they don't have evidence.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Yes, it is true.

Logic is limited. When dealing with the origin and cause for the world, logic doesn't hold the answer.
1 up, 1m
Just because logic is limited doesn't mean that you're not making logical fallacies, or that people shouldn't point out when a person makes logical fallacies. And what do you believe is the circular reasoning inherent in a naturalistic worldview?
reply
0 ups, 3w
I think in this context they are very similar. Evidence meaning 100% correct or proven.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
This is one of the areas that logic is really not all that useful. Neither my belief nor yours on the origin of the universe is logical.

Because science brings truth, I can trust my senses and observations. Because I can trust my senses and observations, science brings truth.
0 ups, 4w
"Because science brings truth, I can trust my senses and observations. Because I can trust my senses and observations, science brings truth."

That's not circular reasoning because neither one of those sentences has to do with a materialistic or naturalistic worldview
reply
0 ups, 3w,
2 replies
I don't think you understand the meaning of the words truth and evidence.
1 up, 3w
Let me guess...you do? Is your understanding betterer and truer and absolutely completely the best?
1 up, 3w
I think I do. What do you think they mean?
reply
0 ups, 4w,
1 reply
If the highest form of truth for those people isn't science and what their senses tell them, what is?
1 up, 4w
I don't know. But science doesn't deal in truth, it deals in evidence and models. Science doesn't claim to know what's absolutely true. Religion does, to its detriment.
reply
0 ups, 3w
I suppose I might understand those specific words more. However I have no idea what Octavia's IQ is and wouldn't be surprised nor overly disconcerted if it was higher than my own.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Did I say I'm a scientist? Don't recall that. :)
reply
1 up, 1m,
1 reply
Did anyone say that you said you're a scientist? Don't recall that. :)
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Don't believe so. ;)
0 ups, 1m
Do you genuinely believe that the difference between theory and scientific theory is whether or not it's being said by a scientist? Maybe take a break from Imgflip and do some very basic research. You know you don't have to be a scientist to research things?
reply
3 ups, 1m,
2 replies
Irreducible complexity is unscientific garbage pushed by ID proponent Michael Bebe. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact because it happens. The theory ties together and explains the phenomena.
reply
3 ups, 1m,
1 reply
No, irreducible complexity is a logical construct that proves evolution cannot have happened. It doesn't matter its source or who discovered it.
The basic gist is that there are systems that require other systems in order to exist. Those other systems require the first system to exist. Therefore you have to have all of those systems in place in order for any of them to exist.
It's also not an isolated occurrence. Its quite common. Some examples are DNA and RNA which must both exist. If one or the other don't, then neither can exist. Same with the motorized cilia on bacteria. Despite scientists trying to compare injection tube mechanisms, it is still irriducably complex.
Other examples are all if the many "factories" in cells. If one of them doesn't exist the others have no purpose aced could not have evolved.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
"Speciation is observed, but it's a loss of genetic data resulting in the inability to breed and produce fertile young. This is not a proof of evolution, it is instead a proof of deevolution."

I don't think speciation means what you think it means, because speciation doesn't result in a loss of genetic data or the inability to produce fertile offspring
reply
0 ups, 1m,
2 replies
Speciation means that they can no longer mate and create fertile young. This has only been observed because of a loss of genetic data.
0 ups, 1m
That's not what the word speciation means. Speciation means the formation of a new species, and the word species means a population of organisms which can breed amongst each other. So speciation involves organisms being able to breed. You're getting it completely backwards as usual.
0 ups, 1m
It's the same thing. The divider between species is that they can't breed and make fertile young.
reply
1 up, 1m,
2 replies
reply
2 ups, 1m,
5 replies
There is overwhelming evidence that evolution happens. It's on the same level of certainty as heliocentrism or germ theory
reply
1 up, 1m,
14 replies
there is evidence for evolution as in adapting to your environment, which doesn't include Darwin evolution. This is called a "bait-and-switch" fallacy, in which you use ambiguity to promote your views.

If evolution from one species to another happens, shouldn't we be finding a lot of animals in their transitional forms? There aren't a lot of fossils of transitional forms and the ones that are found are very questionable.
3 ups, 1m
Every species is in a "transitional" form, because evolution is constant. Everything is still evolving. It's just a matter of what fossils get preserved and what we find.

Think about how the Latin language evolved into many other languages, like French and Spanish. It didn't change overnight, it took many generations of gradual change, and isolated populations developing their own unique dialects, until eventually they are completely new.

Lets say it took 1000 years. If you went back in time at the 250/1000 year marker between Latin and French, and listened to the people speak, that would be a "transitional" language. Go the the 500/1000 year marker between established languages, and that's another "transitional" language, and so on. It's just that we don't have every transitional language between the two, we only have the Latin and French fossils to compare.

No Latin Speaking Mother ever gave birth to a French Speaking Baby. It slowly changed, from each generation to the next, and when you look at the two end point they appear to be completely different, but one came from the other.

This is essentially how evolution works. Very slow gradual change with each generation. In itself is a transition. And our languages are still evolving.
1 up, 1m
"Darwinian evolution is when one species turns into another."

Evolution is change over time. Charles Darwin helped to come up with the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

"You just said we can't prove of any fossils are intermediary, yet people keep saying X fossil is evidence for evolution. If we can't prove it, then why do people keep saying they're intermediary?"

It's not 100% proof, but it's very strong evidence. If you see someone covered in blood holding a bloody knife and running away from someone who has been stabbed, is that 100% proof they're the attacker? No, but it's very strong evidence.

"No species have fundamentally changed that we can see."

Scientists have observed new species being created in nature and in the laboratory.

"Neanderthals look like humans"

But they weren't. They were a side branch of human ancestry.

"Language is a bad example because you can change/add/remove a word from a language and it still works but can't change systems with a small change and expect it to work, E.G. Computers. If there is a glitch in a computer code it will crash"

Will making a small change in computer code necessarily cause it to crash? No.

"Even evolutionists don't know how evolutions happens"

Then you quote from a university website that says that scientists agree THAT evolution happens, they just don't understand everything about HOW it happens.

"In other words biologists have accepted evolution as fact and they don't understand it."

It is a fact THAT it happens. They're trying to understand HOW. I know THAT my truck engine works. I don't fully understand HOW it works.
1 up, 1m
"there is evidence for evolution as in adapting to your environment, which doesn't include Darwin evolution"

There's no such thing as "Darwin evolution"

"If evolution from one species to another happens, shouldn't we be finding a lot of animals in their transitional forms?"

If by transitional form you mean an animal that can be proven to be intermediary between two other species, then no, we don't have any because we can't prove that any particular species in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of or predecessor to any other. But if by transitional form you mean an animal which displays characteristics and traits which are intermediary or show a gradual change between two different species, then yes, we have many of those. We have transitional fossils of horses, primates, hominids, fish, mammals, birds, whales, and many others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

"There aren't a lot of fossils of transitional forms and the ones that are found are very questionable."

Which ones are questionable?
1 up, 1m
Oh, you think that platypuses and echidnas are a hoax?

"With archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not possess.

Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil as the concept "transitional fossil" is defined in science: it possesses intermediate characteristics of entirely different species of animals. We can't say for sure it is actually an ancestor of modern birds rather than a side-branch that ultimately died out, but as explained that is not a genuine problem.

Creationist complaints that transitional fossils are not real transitional fossils are based on their ignorance of what a transitional fossil is or simply on outright distortions of fact. It is not that there isn't room for debate on the nature or categorization of various fossils because there is always room for debate. However, creationist debates are almost never informed debate and as such do not accomplish much."-LearnReligions.com
0 ups, 1m
(continued response to Octavia_Melody)

BTW, your truck analogy illustrates several interesting points in favor of special creation. The truck works because someone designed it to work that way. Secondly, would you really accept that a truck evolved randomly without anyone designing it to work that way, just because you don't understand how it works? The same type of critical thinking should be applied to evolution.
0 ups, 1m
"Darwin evolution"? Evolution is evolution, creatures adapting to their environments was exactly what Darwin studied and reported, what are you even talking about?
0 ups, 1m
You said you were responding to JohnYak and then quoted me, getting a bit overwhelmed, are you?

No just mixed up.
0 ups, 1m
(Response to JohnYak)

"Darwin evolution"? Evolution is evolution, creatures adapting to their environments was exactly what Darwin studied and reported, what are you even talking about?"

Adaptation is real. It selects on genes already present. Darwinian evolution requires addition of genetic information. Entirely new systems (lungs instead of gills) can't be produced in a single-gene-mutation, stepwise fashion. And it has never been observed. Again, Darwin requires the addition of new genes. Natural selection selects genes *already present*. Those are completely different mechanisms, so to describe them both as "evolution" is false and misleading. Even Berkeley says they don't know how complex systems can evolve.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

(Response to Octavia_Melody)

"Evolution is change over time. Charles Darwin helped to come up with the theory of evolution by means of natural selection."

As I said, adaptation is real. It selects on genes already present. Darwinian evolution requires addition of genetic information. Entirely new systems can't be produced in a single-gene-mutation, stepwise fashion.

"It's not 100% proof, but it's very strong evidence."

So fossils of animals that have similar traits to other animals is "strong evidence."

"Scientists have observed new species being created in nature and in the laboratory."

Not sure exactly what you refer to, but if it's making one virus into another in a laboratory, this only highlights the point I make. Calling the adaptation of one virus into another virus a new "species" is misleading. It is adaptation. Manipulation of the existing gene pool. Nothing new has been created. It isn't making a new system, it's combinging genes that already exist. When an entirely new system is observed, along the lines of feathers on fish, get back to me. Meanwhile, a lot of people have been mislead into believing that science has actually observed the random emergence of entirely new complex systems. No. And if you read critically, even evolutionists will tell you so. See Evolution 101
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

"But they weren't. They were a side branch of human ancestry."

That's what you've been told.
0 ups, 1m
(Responding to JRBobDobbs)

I never called the platypus a hoax. There isn't any evidence to show that the platypus is a transitional form or that it's evolving. Fossilized adult platypuses had functioning teeth, yet modern platypuses lose their teeth at an early age. And if platypuses have spent millions of years in water, why can't it breath underwater?

So evidence that the Archaeopteryx is a transitional form is that it's different from other birds. German shepherds have a stronger bite force than Labradors, so I guess German shepherds are more evolved than Labradors. Also no one is saying the Archaeopteryx is a hoax.

(Responding to Octavia_Melody)

"There's no such thing as "Darwin evolution"

Then what kind of evolution were you talking about? Darwinian evolution is when one species turns into another.

"If by transitional form you mean an animal that can be proven to be intermediary between two other species, then no, we don't have any because we can't prove that any particular species in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of or predecessor to any other. But if by transitional form you mean an animal which displays characteristics and traits which are intermediary or show a gradual change between two different species, then yes, we have many of those.

Yes I meant intermediary between two other species. Just because one species has the same traits as another, that doesn't mean it's evolving into another species.

"Which ones are questionable?"

You just said we can't prove of any fossils are intermediary, yet people keep saying X fossil is evidence for evolution. If we can't prove it, then why do people keep saying they're intermediary?

(Responding to JohnYak)

No species have fundamentally changed that we can see. Neanderthals look like humans. Language is a bad example because you can change/add/remove a word from a language and it still works but can't change systems with a small change and expect it to work, E.G. Computers. If there is a glitch in a computer code it will crash.
0 ups, 1m
(Response to everyone involved)

Even evolutionists don't know how evolutions happens

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

(THIS IS AN EVOLUTIONIST WEBSITE)

It says,

"All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens"

In other words biologists have accepted evolution as fact and they don't understand it.

This website even has a section on questions they need to answer and question #3 is how does evolution produce new and complex features?

And the available "evidence" for evolution is that species share traits so therefore they come from a common ancestor. This could also be evidence for a common designer.
0 ups, 1m
(Continued response to Octavia_Melody)

"Will making a small change in computer code necessarily cause it to crash? No."

Misplaced parentheses can cause a program to malfunction.

Genetic mutations usually cause harm. I don't care what X-men says it doesn't work that way.

"It is a fact THAT it happens. They're trying to understand HOW. I know THAT my truck engine works. I don't fully understand HOW it works."

Poor analogy. Someone knows how your trucks works. Furthermore, assuming a conclusion without even a working hypothesis isn't "science." If you walked in on a crime scene, there may be lots of theories as to how things came to be the way you see them. Having a theory, doesn't mean it's the only explanation for how things came to be. It's not science. It's somebody's idea. Nothing more until there is a working explanation of how it came to be that way, or, an eyewitness.
0 ups, 1m
"JRBobDobbs0 ups, 6h
"Darwin evolution"? Evolution is evolution, creatures adapting to their environments was exactly what Darwin studied and reported, what are you even talking about?
flagMemeMaestro21120 ups, <1h

(Response to JohnYak)

"Darwin evolution"? Evolution is evolution, creatures adapting to their environments was exactly what Darwin studied and reported, what are you even talking about?"

You said you were responding to JohnYak and then quoted me, getting a bit overwhelmed, are you?
0 ups, 1m
"For example?"

For example when critics point out that the Bible says Judas hanged himself and then it says he fell from a high place and split open. If you put them together, it says Judas hanged himself on a high place, died, and fell and split open. The fact that he split open shows that he was already dead.
0 ups, 1m
"These contradictions aren't actually contradictions. If you give it leeway, these contradictions actually complement each other."

For example?
reply
0 ups, 1m,
2 replies
You said it's on the same level as the other two, which are observed. Speciation is completely different from the theory of biological evolution. Guessing next you'll use metamorphosis as a "proof" of evolution? Doesn't really even matter if you believe all of it because what secular scientists hold as the ultimate truth of how everything came to be changes every hundred years.
2 ups, 1m
"You said it's on the same level as the other two, which are observed"

When have they been directly observed?

"Speciation is completely different from the theory of biological evolution"

No, it's a part of it

"what secular scientists hold as the ultimate truth of how everything came to be changes every hundred years."

Except scientists don't hold anything as "the ultimate truth of how everything came to be". Scientists come up with models which explain the world around us as best as possible based on the available evidence. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth or absolute proof of anything.

And scientific conclusions change as new evidence comes in. Compare that to the Bible which hasn't been updated in 2000 years, and which contains many, many mistakes.
2 ups, 1m
Religion has no method of self-correction like science does
reply
0 ups, 1m,
2 replies
Incorrect because you cannot observe it.
2 ups, 1m
Yes you can. Speciation has been observed in nature and in the lab. And something doesn't have to be directly observed to be science.
0 ups, 1m
Speciation is observed, but it's a loss of genetic data resulting in the inability to breed and produce fertile young. This is not a proof of evolution, it is instead a proof of deevolution.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
The Bible doesn't change because it doesn't need to. It's perfect, and these theories only need "self correction" because they're found out to be wrong every century. Takes just as much faith to believe in the revolving door of scientific theory as it does that God created everything.

So for you to say there's proof or evidence for evolution is ridiculous, because literally any day scientists could completely ditch that like they are doing to the big bang.
3 ups, 1m
Hah! "The Bible doesn't change because it doesn't need to. It's perfect."

Are you serious? It's been altered countless times!
reply
0 ups, 1m,
5 replies
Umm no. That's why its remained a theory. Because its literally unprovable. There is no evidence for evolution that isn't also evidence for another theory. In fact when you remove all the speculation then you are left with facts that disprove it. Such as the so called tree of life. If you remove speculation it looks more like a lawn with a few split tops on the grass.
2 ups, 1m
"That's why its remained a theory. Because its literally unprovable"

No scientific theory is "provable". Science makes models, it doesn't provide absolute certainty or proof. But too many people confuse that with thinking that that means that science is unreliable.

"There is no evidence for evolution that isn't also evidence for another theory"

Another theory such as what?

"In fact when you remove all the speculation then you are left with facts that disprove it."

No you aren't
0 ups, 1m
Responding to below (Octavia_Melody)
So scientific laws don't exist then? In reality because so little evidence points in its general direction the theory of evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis.
When I say its unprovable what I mean is there is no test that it can fail that would unequivocally make it not true. for instance if I were to have a theory that gravity doesn't work in water a test would be to drop an object in water and observe if it moves toward the bottom or not.
At one time they said that if we found a fossil out of place in the different layers that it would prove the theory of evolution wrong.
We did that with clams being found in a layer long before they were thought to have existed. Instead of proving it wrong they simply amended the theory so that clams evolved much earlier.
Go ahead. Try to give me a test that evolution can fail at, to prove it is an actual theory.
0 ups, 1m
Responding to JRBobDobbs below:
The 'Theory' of Evolution is not a testable event. All attempts to test it have failed. They have yet to force through environmental factors one creature to change into another. Therefore it is 'untestable' as in it cannot be tested. It is therefore not even a theory. It is a hypothesis.
0 ups, 1m
" That's why its remained a theory. Because its literally unprovable."

What are you talking about? It's a scientific theory which means is based on proven hypotheses.
0 ups, 1m
(Response to JRBobDobbs)

When has the Bible ever been changed? Scientists are constantly changing secular theories like the Big Bang.

There are many archeological findings that show Biblical events. Like other documents about people seeing Jesus after he was crucified. There are whole videos about archeological findings that support the Bible. David Rohl (An agnostic) has shown evidence for events described in the book of exodus.
reply
1 up, 1m,
8 replies
"The Bible doesn't change because it doesn't need to. It's perfect"

Then why does it contain mistakes, errors and contradictions?

"and these theories only need "self correction" because they're found out to be wrong every century"

When was germ theory found to be wrong? Cell theory? Heliocentricity?

"Takes just as much faith to believe in the revolving door of scientific theory as it does that God created everything."

No, because science relies on evidence. Religion doesn't.

"literally any day scientists could completely ditch that like they are doing to the Big Bang"

They aren't ditching the Big Bang
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Well you don't believe the Christian presupposition that the Bible's authors were inspired to write what they did. That's why it's called the Word of God. Thus, I'm not sure the conversation can do any good by continuing.

Also in those verses it says the Earth cannot BE moved not that it isn't moving. What I get from that is basically God helping us understand we humans aren't nearly as strong or powerful as we like to think we are. Similar to what he said to Job.
1 up, 1m
"Well you don't believe the Christian presupposition that the Bible's authors were inspired to write what they did"

How do you think Christians can prove that claim? What evidence can you provide that it's true? And if you can't provide evidence that it's true, why would you believe that it's true?

"Also in those verses it says the Earth cannot BE moved not that it isn't moving"

I'm pretty sure you see what a lousy argument that is. If the Bible says it cannot be moved, doesn't that seem to indicate that it is incapable of moving? You're trying to play fast and loose with the wording to get around what it clearly says. Also, how do you explain away the fact that it says the earth has foundations? Is that more analogy or poetic language?

And would you make the same excuses for the Quran or other holy books when they say things that clearly aren't supported by evidence or reality?
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Was going to say something similar to this, but it sums it up nicely.

The claim seems to have an underlying assumption that it is impossible to be "fixed" and "immovable" and yet orbit around the sun. But the fact is, the earth has proven itself to be fixed and immovable:

• The earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun. Have you ever known the earth to "unfix" itself and "move" itself out of its orbit around the sun? It doesn't happen, because the earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun.

• The earth also is fixed and immovable in relation to us. There has never been a single day in which we had no place to stand, because the earth unfixed itself and moved itself out from under our feet.

The earth has always been fixed and immovable, both in relation to us and in relation to its orbit around the sun. In fact we've learned to take it for granted that the sun will shine during the day and that there will ground for us to stand on when we awake in the morning.

Having said that, one should at least consider the possibility that the verses cited above are actually using a figure of speech, to express the permanence of God's will and the permanence of his creation.
0 ups, 1m
"The claim seems to have an underlying assumption that it is impossible to be "fixed" and "immovable" and yet orbit around the sun"

Something that is immovable doesn't move around the sun

"But the fact is, the earth has proven itself to be fixed and immovable"

No, because it moves around the sun constantly

"The earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun"

How do you know this?

"The earth also is fixed and immovable in relation to us"

You seem to misunderstand how gravity works

"The earth has always been fixed and immovable, both in relation to us and in relation to its orbit around the sun"

That is being neither fixed nor immovable

"Having said that, one should at least consider the possibility that the verses cited above are actually using a figure of speech, to express the permanence of God's will and the permanence of his creation."

Except to make that argument, you have to project modern-day knowledge onto people thousands of years ago who had no way of knowing that the Earth actually orbits the sun. I see Christians do this all the time. The read something in the Bible which is in direct conflict with what we know about the world, and they try to make the excuse that the Bible authors were just being poetic or metaphorical, when there's no evidence to suggest that they were.

The Bible authors clearly say in numerous verses that the Earth is fixed and it does not move. It says that repeatedly. I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to believe that they meant what they said.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
2 replies
Yes it does.
1 up, 1m
The Bible says it doesn't. That's a mistake
0 ups, 1m
(Move)
reply
0 ups, 1m
That claim holds because the Bible says so. In case you didn't realize, every belief (including those who don't hold to any religion) contains circular reasoning.

"Doesn't that seem to indicate..." Now you're jumping into random assumptions. Nice evidence. The problem I have with other holy books isn't supernatural contents or figurative language.
reply
0 ups, 1m
And by supernatural I mean supernatural claims. Which I believe to be untrue, except those found in the Bible.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
1 reply
Where eh?
1 up, 1m
1 Chronicles 16:30
"...the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved"

Psalm 93:1
"the world also is established, that it cannot be moved"

Psalm 96:10
"the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved"

Psalm 104:5
"Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever"
reply
0 ups, 1m,
3 replies
I specifically was speaking of theories on how the world and everything in it came to be. Oops, guess I should've been more specific.

It doesn't contain mistakes.

Many are.
1 up, 1m
The Bible has been proven to contain mistakes and contradictions
1 up, 1m
Like you?
0 ups, 1m
These contradictions aren't actually contradictions. If you give it leeway, these contradictions actually complement each other.
reply
0 ups, 1m,
3 replies
So you claim.
1 up, 1m
It says we can't move the earth.
1 up, 1m
No it is a fact that the Bible does contain mistakes and contradictions
1 up, 1m
Does the Earth move?
Show More Comments
Flip Settings
memes
gifs
other
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT PROTESTERS ARE IMMUNE; FROM LAWS
hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back
Feedback