Thread 510058960

Watch me prove evolution in three bullet points.

1. Offspring resemble their parents (inheritance exists)
2. In nature, not all offspring live to reproduce (struggle for survival)
3. There are organisms alive today that did not exist in the past, and organisms existed in the past that do not exist today (fossils are real)

Retards think the theory of evolution claims something came from nothing blah blah you’re retarded. The theory of evolution argues that life changes over time (it evolves). You literally cannot disprove the three points above.

>>510058960 (OP)
The atheist worldview is incoherent and philosophically bankrupt.
Atheists constantly appeal to truth, logic, and reason when attacking Christianity, yet their worldview gives them no foundation for any of these things.

So let’s hear it:

In a worldview where everything is material, random, unguided, and constantly changing, where humans are just biological accidents shaped by evolutionary chance, how do you account for the existence of universal, immaterial, and unchanging logical laws? How do you justify trusting your own reasoning if your thoughts are nothing more than neurons firing for survival, not truth? And what even is truth in a universe governed by blind, purposeless physics?

If you can't justify logic, reason, and truth in your worldview, then you can't justify anything, including your atheism.

But let’s be real. You won’t answer this. You’ll just dodge, deflect, mock, and impotently rage. That’s all you atheists ever do.

Prove me wrong.

Christians don't deny the type of evolution you described. What they deny is that the universe is billions of years old and that unicellular organisms can evolve into people, or just the idea of inter-species evolution in general.

Also, the Omphalos Hypothesis synthesizes Christianity and Darwinian Evolution perfectly anyways so this whole discussion is retarded.

>>510058960 (OP)
>>510059310
Reminder that the anti evolution craze started with protestants thinking it was Catholic science, even though the Catholic church had just written it off as plausible.

>>510059640
That's based.

>>510058960 (OP)
>The theory of evolution argues that life changes over time (it evolves).
so what it evolved from originally and what introduces such drastic changes?
>>510059310
the evolution theory itself doesnt exclude the existence of God(s), you can believe in a God and still believe in evolution.

>>510059310
You don't have to believe in "logic" as some Platonistic manifestation. It's all downstream of two basic principles: law of identity and law of non-contradiction.
"It is what it is and it ain't what it's not."

These "laws" didn't need to "come from" anywhere. They're just a fancy way we came up with to describe the fact that reality doesn't fundamentally contradict itself.

>>510058960 (OP)
>Retards think the theory of evolution claims something came from nothing blah blah you’re retarded
Their aggressive misunderstanding of something and inability to honestly explain things they disagree... doesn't represent the thing they disagree with. That's the issue. Misconstruing on purpose.

>>510058960 (OP)
I don't need to disprove anything to a retard begging to argue over retarded shit on a Mongolian basket weaving forum.

>>510058960 (OP)
>(fossils are real)
now post the innumerable transitional fossils that must exist for evolution to be real according to darwin.
>There are organisms alive today that did not exist in the past
>anon is millions of years old

>>510061089
Try understanding how fossils are made and understand the idea that not every creature that ever lived would be turned into a fossil, especially when biology eats biology and most off the creatures that lived were consumed by other creatures. We barely know about the past, that doesn't give christcucks authority to make the past up to suit their lying needs.

>>510061183
>there are no innumerable transitional fossils like Darwin said
thank you very much.
>Try understanding how fossils are made and understand the idea that not every creature that ever lived would be turned into a fossil
how about (you) try understanding how evolution is supposed to work and how many failed creatures it requires before getting 2 exactly the same right and have them reproduce.
>that doesn't give Christians authority to make the past up to suit their lying needs.
sure. neither do athiests get the authority to do so.

>>510061622
Nah, VPN faggot, understand how evolution works and how fossils work and the chances of a creature becoming a fossil.

You just don't want to believe because you're a schizo who wants to pretend reality is the matrix and revolves around you.

>neither do athiests get the authority to do so.
Atheists don't deny observable, physical reality where theists just make things up that sound cool to them.

>>510059715
>the evolution theory itself doesnt exclude the existence of God(s)
yes it does. it mandates randomness.
>>510062067
>Atheists don't deny observable, physical reality where theists just make things up that sound cool to them.
atheists do make things up that sounds cool to them. like this evolution bullshit.
Darwin himself cried about the incomplete fossil record and claimed it would prove him right when completed. it didn't.
atheists are alergic to the fact that God actually exists so they have to come up with whatever shit they can to discredit the Church.

>>510062400
>yes it does.
how?
>it mandates randomness.
why wouldnt God use randomness?

>>510062400
>atheists do make things up that sounds cool to them. like this evolution bullshit.
No, it's something observable from reality and provable from reality. It's not something springing from the imagination. Like "DOGKU THE ETERNAL SPAWNED THE FROGS FROM THIS BUTTHOLE TO SERVE HIM TEA" that's theism.

Evolution establishes cause and effect. Theism is "everything came form nothing before this random character I made up just made it all up."

>atheists are alergic to the fact that God actually exists
god doesn't exist, you're just a liar. That's what theists are -- liars.

Lol. Lmao

>>510062517
randomness = no God. it was always intended like this.
>in 1869, Wallace backtracked on his commitment to natural selection in human evolution.
>He claimed instead that the mental attributes of modern human beings must emerge from some force or power outside the natural world. There must be something else other than mere matter in this world,
>Wallace maintained: “whether we call it God, or spirit,” it surely played an important role in human evolution.
>“I hope you have not murdered too completely your own & my child” Darwin exclaimed in horror
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(13)01320-1.pdf
>why wouldnt God use randomness?
God can do whatever he pleases. we reject it because Darwinians deny God and their own tests reject it.
>Observed mutation frequencies around genes in turn accurately predict patterns of genetic polymorphisms in natural Arabidopsis accessions (r=0.96). That mutation bias is the primary force behind patterns of sequence evolution around genes in natural accessions is supported by analyses of allele frequencies. Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6
>>510063487
>it's something observable from reality and provable from reality
it literally isn't.
>It's not something springing from the imagination
it literally is.
>god doesn't exist
>anon believes everything started out of nothing, by no one and claims to believe in cause and effect
listen to yourself. even if we concede evolution like that German anon, there is no explanation for who started life or how it started.
cause and effect demand that someone started it. we believe that someone is God.
aliens maybe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRYgbGmX4j8&t=157

>>510060112
>These "laws" didn't need to "come from" anywhere.
So.....then it's possible for God to have always existed?

>>510065075
>God can do whatever he pleases.
exactly thats why randomness is an inherent feature of the universe.

>>510065136
Well first off that's a non-sequitur. These logical laws aren't "things."
Reality not fundamentally contradicting itself does not imply there's some force or phenomenon preventing those contradictions from happening.

But to answer your question, sure. Just like how it's possible the universe always existed. Something being possible does not mean it's true, however.

>>510065755
>randomness is an inherent feature of the universe.
i don't agree with this statement. we perceive some things as random because we lack the understanding of all the factors affecting them.
i know you don't mean it this way but physical and chemical characteristics of materials being consistent allows the development of all technology.
atheists take this consistency for granted when they go about muh random mutations.

>>510066176
quantum events are fundamentally random.

>>510066334
i can't debate a subject i know zero info about.

>>510066176
Quantum fuckery aside:
Mutations are "random" in the same sense dice rolls are random.

Sure, in principle you could calculate exactly what gene is going to be modified and how in response to a blast from some cosmic rays or retroviral implant, but at the grand scale the signal is mostly static noise with some fixed patterns.

>>510066474
>Mutations are "random" in the same sense dice rolls are random.
not really. no. see >>510065075
>>Observed mutation frequencies around genes in turn accurately predict patterns of genetic polymorphisms in natural Arabidopsis accessions (r=0.96). That mutation bias is the primary force behind patterns of sequence evolution around genes in natural accessions is supported by analyses of allele frequencies. Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.
>www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

>>510066641
A bell curve having a left or right bias does not negate the probabilistic nature of the whole system.
Of course this is just more natural selection anyway. Populations which developed a defense against deleterious mutations are more likely to survive in the long term.

>>510066641
You understand that if an object had 20% chance to move left and 80% chance to move right, stochastically it will move right (directed), even though each step is itself random.

>>510066957
>>510067604
>mutations are like a dice roll, effectively 1/6 chance
>>mutations are not like a dice roll irl at all and not all sides get 1/6 chance
>it's still dice roll because it's all chance based
wtf am i reading

>>510068104
You might have brain damage if you have trouble understanding non uniform probability distribution.

>>510068669
so mutations aren't random like a dice?
what was your point then?

>>510068104
>wtf am i reading
Maybe work on your reading comprehension?

>>510069082
I said "in the same sense."
Dice rolls can be precisely determined if you know all underlying variables. Mutations can be precisely determined if you know all underlying variables.
So many underlying variables go into both situations that it's not reasonably possible one could though.

BTW, weighted dice do exist. And your example is kinda like if I said "machine gun fire from far away with bad aim is gonna be pretty random" and you responding "well I don't see many people with gunshot wounds where they happened to be wearing armor."
Yeah, the armor prevented the wound. Doesn't make the bullets fly any less randomly.

>>510059310
>how do you account for the existence of universal, immaterial, and unchanging logical laws?
How do you know they are unchanging?
Somethings couldn't be any other way.
Geometry is naturally the only way for dimensions to work. There couldn't be any other way.

>>510059563
>or just the idea of inter-species evolution in general.
How do they explain niggers and whites having a offspring then?

>>510070513
>weighted dice do exist
i do know they exist. that's why i brought it up.
that's what the paper states.
>The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations) (Fig. 4d).
the crux of the Darwinian theory is absolute randomness and lack of direction. see >>510065075
since it's not really random, the theory is simply wrong.

>>510071259
>the crux of the Darwinian theory is absolute randomness and lack of direction.
No it's not. That's your own strawman.

>>510058960 (OP)
Christians don't take issue with any of that. You take issue that something other than human evolved into a human. You'll never prove that because you can't because it's just not true.

>Disproves evolution in you are path
At the bare minimum a butterfly proves intelligent design

>>510071489
Oh so mutations aren't random they're deliberate. Well what in the fuck is making the decision for a gene to pass on or not? You fucking retard

>>510072829
Now you're just playing word games.
His argument wad that, because there are mediating factors and not all mutations are equally likely, it's not "truly random." A rock isn't necessarily equally likely to land on any given side if it falls. Does that mean the side it falls on is deliberate, moron?