Current Events > Do you consider evolution to be 100% proven fact?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Evening_Dragon 09/06/19 3:45:06 PM #51:	COVxy posted... Tyranthraxus posted... COVxy posted... It's kinda silly. The only "facts" in science are actual data. And to suggest having data makes a theory both fact and theory is silly. Because then all theories are both fact and theory. Well the theory is an attempt to explain the facts. And sometimes the theory is wrong but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Thus Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain it. The only reason you're seeing it explained that way, the only reason there's a specific wiki entry re:evolution like that, is because evolution has been politicized. It's a way to play with words to lazily argue a point that could be better made appropriately. Not at all. That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution. --- "A guy talking into the camera about politics? My favorite." - Phantom_Nook Guide, it's Guide, it's that Guide <cite>Evening_Dragon posted [p:927069113] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted... </cite> <quote>It's kinda silly. The only "facts" in science are actual data. And to suggest having data makes a theory both fact and theory is silly. Because then all theories are both fact and theory.</quote> Well the theory is an attempt to explain the facts. And sometimes the theory is wrong but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Thus Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain it. </quote> The only reason you're seeing it explained that way, the only reason there's a specific wiki entry re:evolution like that, is because evolution has been politicized. It's a way to play with words to lazily argue a point that could be better made appropriately.</quote> Not at all. That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 09/06/19 3:45:51 PM #52:	That's not how science works --- https://imgur.com/VeNBg https://imgur.com/gd5jC8q https://imgur.com/PKIy7 https://imgur.com/3p29JqP <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:927069145] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>That's not how science works</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Firewerx 09/06/19 3:46:07 PM #53:	shockthemonkey posted... KJBDEFENDER posted... MorbidFaithless posted... It's literally scientific fact. But it's literally NOT a scientific FACT. That's why it's called The THEORY of Evolution, not The LAW of Evolution. You got the Law of Gravity, the Law of Thermodynamics, etc. Provable, demonstrable. The last two generations have been brainwashed by a leftist education system. Tell a lie long enough and often enough and it won't be long before there is no one left who knows the facts. This gets funnier with every post Nah. A good joke makes you laugh, not roll your eyes and shake your head. --- Badwired <cite>Firewerx posted [p:927069155] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>shockthemonkey posted...</cite> <quote>KJBDEFENDER posted...</cite> <quote>MorbidFaithless posted...</cite> <quote>It's literally scientific fact. </quote> But it's literally NOT a scientific FACT. That's why it's called The THEORY of Evolution, not The LAW of Evolution. You got the Law of Gravity, the Law of Thermodynamics, etc. Provable, demonstrable. The last two generations have been brainwashed by a leftist education system. Tell a lie long enough and often enough and it won't be long before there is no one left who knows the facts.</quote> This gets funnier with every post</quote> Nah. A good joke makes you laugh, not roll your eyes and shake your head.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BignutzisBack 09/06/19 3:46:18 PM #54:	I believe in evolution but I have to laugh at people who honestly think it's a proven 100% scientific fact lol --- https://imgur.com/plA0Vg9 https://media.giphy.com/media/dgK22exekwOLm/giphy.gif <cite>BignutzisBack posted [p:927069164] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>I believe in evolution but I have to laugh at people who honestly think it's a proven 100% scientific fact lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Evening_Dragon 09/06/19 3:47:16 PM #55:	BignutzisBack posted... I believe in evolution but I have to laugh at people who honestly think it's a proven 100% scientific fact lol Do you know of some proof percentage system I'm not aware of? --- "A guy talking into the camera about politics? My favorite." - Phantom_Nook Guide, it's Guide, it's that Guide <cite>Evening_Dragon posted [p:927069203] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>BignutzisBack posted...</cite> <quote>I believe in evolution but I have to laugh at people who honestly think it's a proven 100% scientific fact lol </quote> Do you know of some proof percentage system I'm not aware of?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BignutzisBack 09/06/19 3:50:11 PM #56:	Evening_Dragon posted... Do you know of some proof percentage system I'm not aware of? Yes, but you'll have to evolve more before you understand --- https://imgur.com/plA0Vg9 https://media.giphy.com/media/dgK22exekwOLm/giphy.gif <cite>BignutzisBack posted [p:927069339] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Evening_Dragon posted... </cite> <quote>Do you know of some proof percentage system I'm not aware of?</quote> Yes, but you'll have to evolve more before you understand </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 09/06/19 3:54:57 PM #57:	Evening_Dragon posted... COVxy posted... Tyranthraxus posted... COVxy posted... It's kinda silly. The only "facts" in science are actual data. And to suggest having data makes a theory both fact and theory is silly. Because then all theories are both fact and theory. Well the theory is an attempt to explain the facts. And sometimes the theory is wrong but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Thus Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain it. The only reason you're seeing it explained that way, the only reason there's a specific wiki entry re:evolution like that, is because evolution has been politicized. It's a way to play with words to lazily argue a point that could be better made appropriately. Not at all. That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution. It's a deceptive way of describing things for the sole purpose of arguing with lay people. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:927069529] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Evening_Dragon posted...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted... </cite> <quote>It's kinda silly. The only "facts" in science are actual data. And to suggest having data makes a theory both fact and theory is silly. Because then all theories are both fact and theory.</quote> Well the theory is an attempt to explain the facts. And sometimes the theory is wrong but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Thus Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain it. </quote> The only reason you're seeing it explained that way, the only reason there's a specific wiki entry re:evolution like that, is because evolution has been politicized. It's a way to play with words to lazily argue a point that could be better made appropriately.</quote> Not at all. That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution.</quote> It's a deceptive way of describing things for the sole purpose of arguing with lay people.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Evening_Dragon 09/06/19 3:56:57 PM #58:	COVxy posted... Evening_Dragon posted... COVxy posted... Tyranthraxus posted... COVxy posted... It's kinda silly. The only "facts" in science are actual data. And to suggest having data makes a theory both fact and theory is silly. Because then all theories are both fact and theory. Well the theory is an attempt to explain the facts. And sometimes the theory is wrong but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Thus Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain it. The only reason you're seeing it explained that way, the only reason there's a specific wiki entry re:evolution like that, is because evolution has been politicized. It's a way to play with words to lazily argue a point that could be better made appropriately. Not at all. That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution. It's a deceptive way of describing things for the sole purpose of arguing with lay people. Science is not conspiring against casuals m8 --- "A guy talking into the camera about politics? My favorite." - Phantom_Nook Guide, it's Guide, it's that Guide <cite>Evening_Dragon posted [p:927069610] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Evening_Dragon posted...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted... </cite> <quote>It's kinda silly. The only "facts" in science are actual data. And to suggest having data makes a theory both fact and theory is silly. Because then all theories are both fact and theory.</quote> Well the theory is an attempt to explain the facts. And sometimes the theory is wrong but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Thus Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain it. </quote> The only reason you're seeing it explained that way, the only reason there's a specific wiki entry re:evolution like that, is because evolution has been politicized. It's a way to play with words to lazily argue a point that could be better made appropriately.</quote> Not at all. That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution.</quote> It's a deceptive way of describing things for the sole purpose of arguing with lay people.</quote> Science is not conspiring against casuals m8</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 09/06/19 3:58:16 PM #59:	Evening_Dragon posted... COVxy posted... Evening_Dragon posted... COVxy posted... Tyranthraxus posted... COVxy posted... It's kinda silly. The only "facts" in science are actual data. And to suggest having data makes a theory both fact and theory is silly. Because then all theories are both fact and theory. Well the theory is an attempt to explain the facts. And sometimes the theory is wrong but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Thus Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain it. The only reason you're seeing it explained that way, the only reason there's a specific wiki entry re:evolution like that, is because evolution has been politicized. It's a way to play with words to lazily argue a point that could be better made appropriately. Not at all. That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution. It's a deceptive way of describing things for the sole purpose of arguing with lay people. Science is not conspiring against casuals m8 Politicians and people discussing science politically are, though. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:927069677] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Evening_Dragon posted...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Evening_Dragon posted...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted... </cite> <quote>It's kinda silly. The only "facts" in science are actual data. And to suggest having data makes a theory both fact and theory is silly. Because then all theories are both fact and theory.</quote> Well the theory is an attempt to explain the facts. And sometimes the theory is wrong but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong. Thus Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is just an attempt to explain it. </quote> The only reason you're seeing it explained that way, the only reason there's a specific wiki entry re:evolution like that, is because evolution has been politicized. It's a way to play with words to lazily argue a point that could be better made appropriately.</quote> Not at all. That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution.</quote> It's a deceptive way of describing things for the sole purpose of arguing with lay people.</quote> Science is not conspiring against casuals m8</quote> Politicians and people discussing science politically are, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Evening_Dragon 09/06/19 4:00:06 PM #60:	That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution. --- "A guy talking into the camera about politics? My favorite." - Phantom_Nook Guide, it's Guide, it's that Guide <cite>Evening_Dragon posted [p:927069753] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote><quote> That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wetterdew 09/06/19 4:01:46 PM #61:	Evolution is so obviously the explanation for how life got to the point where we're at now. And also the explanation for why vaccinations work And lots of other stuff --- Touch fuzzy get dizzy. <cite>Wetterdew posted [p:927069830] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Evolution is so obviously the explanation for how life got to the point where we're at now. And also the explanation for why vaccinations work And lots of other stuff</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LadyVyxx 09/06/19 4:02:20 PM #62:	Fuparulez posted... Intelligent design makes far more sense than the belief that life randomly sprung up from nothing. Not creationism, but intelligent design. Lol <cite>LadyVyxx posted [p:927069855] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Fuparulez posted...</cite> <quote>Intelligent design makes far more sense than the belief that life randomly sprung up from nothing. Not creationism, but intelligent design.</quote> Lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Machete 09/06/19 4:09:06 PM #63:	Fuparulez posted... Of course I'm being serious. The funny thing is that most of the pro evolution arguments make more of a case for intelligent design. Venus, Earth, and Mars were three science experiments by an advanced culture. They terraformed the three of them, which is something we've proposed, then they engineered life to exist in every place, which is something we dabble with. Venus and Mars obviously failed. Look at the places life exists. Stuff living at the bottom of the ocean. That defies nature. Why would stuff want to live there when it could live... anywhere else. Somebody biologically engineered those creatures and put them there. "But we have vestigial organs, that's proof of evolution!" "We're 80% genetically similar to lettuce, that's proof of evolution!" No, that's just proof of lazy biological programmers. You ever done any coding? When you start a new task, you don't start from scratch. You take existing code and modify it to do what you need and extemporaneous code that doesn't hurt anything? Most of the time it gets left in. That's what our DNA is. Source code. Somebody wrote it. ... Wat --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>Machete posted [p:927070155] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Fuparulez posted...</cite> <quote>Of course I'm being serious. The funny thing is that most of the pro evolution arguments make more of a case for intelligent design. Venus, Earth, and Mars were three science experiments by an advanced culture. They terraformed the three of them, which is something we've proposed, then they engineered life to exist in every place, which is something we dabble with. Venus and Mars obviously failed. Look at the places life exists. Stuff living at the bottom of the ocean. That defies nature. Why would stuff want to live there when it could live... anywhere else. Somebody biologically engineered those creatures and put them there. "But we have vestigial organs, that's proof of evolution!" "We're 80% genetically similar to lettuce, that's proof of evolution!" No, that's just proof of lazy biological programmers. You ever done any coding? When you start a new task, you don't start from scratch. You take existing code and modify it to do what you need and extemporaneous code that doesn't hurt anything? Most of the time it gets left in. That's what our DNA is. Source code. Somebody wrote it.</quote> ... Wat</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 09/06/19 4:10:22 PM #64:	Evening_Dragon posted... That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution. I don't think you are understanding me. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:927070212] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Evening_Dragon posted...</cite> <quote><quote> That's just the scientific definition of a theory, regardless of whether or not it has to do with evolution.</quote></quote> I don't think you are understanding me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Machete 09/06/19 4:22:47 PM #65:	KJBDEFENDER posted... MorbidFaithless posted... It's literally scientific fact. But it's literally NOT a scientific FACT. That's why it's called The THEORY of Evolution, not The LAW of Evolution. You got the Law of Gravity, the Law of Thermodynamics, etc. Provable, demonstrable. The last two generations have been brainwashed by a leftist education system. Tell a lie long enough and often enough and it won't be long before there is no one left who knows the facts. Wow. It's 2019 and we still have people saying "iT's JuSt a ThEoRy" and thinking they know what they are talking about. Might as well believe in flat earth lol --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>Machete posted [p:927070803] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>KJBDEFENDER posted...</cite> <quote>MorbidFaithless posted...</cite> <quote>It's literally scientific fact. </quote> But it's literally NOT a scientific FACT. That's why it's called The THEORY of Evolution, not The LAW of Evolution. You got the Law of Gravity, the Law of Thermodynamics, etc. Provable, demonstrable. The last two generations have been brainwashed by a leftist education system. Tell a lie long enough and often enough and it won't be long before there is no one left who knows the facts.</quote> Wow. It's 2019 and we still have people saying "iT's JuSt a ThEoRy" and thinking they know what they are talking about. Might as well believe in flat earth lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Machete 09/06/19 4:24:26 PM #66:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys. The lack of understanding of things here is astounding. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>Machete posted [p:927070883] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys.</quote> The lack of understanding of things here is astounding.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Evening_Dragon 09/06/19 4:26:40 PM #67:	Machete posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys. The lack of understanding of things here is astounding. I'd be astounded, but I recognize the username. This is exactly his level. --- "A guy talking into the camera about politics? My favorite." - Phantom_Nook Guide, it's Guide, it's that Guide <cite>Evening_Dragon posted [p:927070972] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys.</quote> The lack of understanding of things here is astounding.</quote> I'd be astounded, but I recognize the username. This is exactly his level.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pepys Monster 09/06/19 4:32:11 PM #68:	Fuparulez posted... Intelligent design makes far more sense than the belief that life randomly sprung up from nothing. Not creationism, but intelligent design. Life didn't spring from nothing. Life is a series of chemical reactions. Nothing more. --- GOML <cite>Pepys Monster posted [p:927071201] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Fuparulez posted...</cite> <quote>Intelligent design makes far more sense than the belief that life randomly sprung up from nothing. Not creationism, but intelligent design.</quote> Life didn't spring from nothing. Life is a series of chemical reactions. Nothing more.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 09/06/19 4:37:39 PM #69:	Machete posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys. The lack of understanding of things here is astounding. This is the biggest lie in the scientific community. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:927071442] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys.</quote> The lack of understanding of things here is astounding.</quote> This is the biggest lie in the scientific community. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#70	Post #70 was unavailable or deleted.
Machete 09/06/19 5:06:48 PM #71:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... Machete posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys. The lack of understanding of things here is astounding. This is the biggest lie in the scientific community. You seem to believe that evolution is saying that modern monkeys have always been the same as they are now but then at some point some of them but not all of them evolved into humans. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>Machete posted [p:927072731] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys.</quote> The lack of understanding of things here is astounding.</quote> This is the biggest lie in the scientific community. </quote> You seem to believe that evolution is saying that modern monkeys have always been the same as they are now but then at some point some of them but not all of them evolved into humans.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wetterdew 09/06/19 5:07:09 PM #72:	Fuparulez posted... Intelligent design makes far more sense than the belief that life randomly sprung up from nothing. Not creationism, but intelligent design. then where did the intelligent designer spring up from? from nothing? --- Touch fuzzy get dizzy. <cite>Wetterdew posted [p:927072745] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Fuparulez posted...</cite> <quote>Intelligent design makes far more sense than the belief that life randomly sprung up from nothing. Not creationism, but intelligent design.</quote> then where did the intelligent designer spring up from? from nothing?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlphaCuck 09/06/19 5:12:37 PM #73:	If evolution is real how come there's still squirtles <cite>AlphaCuck posted [p:927072955] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>If evolution is real how come there's still squirtles </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 09/06/19 5:20:27 PM #74:	Strange that Darwinism has become so dogmatic Not that I dont think it is a great model to explain a wide variety of phenomena. Its the best we have. But so was Newtonian mechanics, Hamiltonian mechanics, lagrangian mechanics, quantum mechanics, any theory ever come up with about the human mind I. Psych, etc. The models get better each time but a paradigm shift is usually required. But there are some things it cant explain That doesnt mean the other main theory (design) is true. It just means our model isnt there yet. Dunno why so many people are saying its without flaw (100% fact or whatever term was used) The dogma hurts any chance of a true visionary (the next Darwin) being laughed out of the lecture hall because bro, its 100% proven so no need to waste time <cite>Romes187 posted [p:927073269] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Strange that Darwinism has become so dogmatic Not that I dont think it is a great model to explain a wide variety of phenomena. Its the best we have. But so was Newtonian mechanics, Hamiltonian mechanics, lagrangian mechanics, quantum mechanics, any theory ever come up with about the human mind I. Psych, etc. The models get better each time but a paradigm shift is usually required. But there are some things it cant explain That doesnt mean the other main theory (design) is true. It just means our model isnt there yet. Dunno why so many people are saying its without flaw (100% fact or whatever term was used) The dogma hurts any chance of a true visionary (the next Darwin) being laughed out of the lecture hall because bro, its 100% proven so no need to waste time</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MagnusX 09/06/19 5:23:41 PM #75:	Romes187 posted... The dogma hurts any chance of a true visionary (the next Darwin) being laughed out of the lecture hall because bro, its 100% proven so no need to waste time Any future Darwin who has valid data to back their point won't be laughed out. No data/pure speculation? Gtfo. <cite>MagnusX posted [p:927073402] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>The dogma hurts any chance of a true visionary (the next Darwin) being laughed out of the lecture hall because bro, its 100% proven so no need to waste time</quote> Any future Darwin who has valid data to back their point won't be laughed out. No data/pure speculation? Gtfo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 09/06/19 5:29:41 PM #76:	MagnusX posted... Romes187 posted... The dogma hurts any chance of a true visionary (the next Darwin) being laughed out of the lecture hall because bro, its 100% proven so no need to waste time Any future Darwin who has valid data to back their point won't be laughed out. No data/pure speculation? Gtfo. Would love to hear you say that to the physicists who discovered the Higgs mechanism, or most theoretical physics Or Dirac Or (the list goes on and on) <cite>Romes187 posted [p:927073664] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>MagnusX posted...</cite> <quote>Romes187 posted...</cite> <quote>The dogma hurts any chance of a true visionary (the next Darwin) being laughed out of the lecture hall because bro, its 100% proven so no need to waste time</quote> Any future Darwin who has valid data to back their point won't be laughed out. No data/pure speculation? Gtfo.</quote> Would love to hear you say that to the physicists who discovered the Higgs mechanism, or most theoretical physics Or Dirac Or (the list goes on and on)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 09/06/19 5:30:24 PM #77:	Btw plenty of scientists get laughed out before being proven (more) correct The downside is the number of years it takes to realize they were correct are missed opportunities to live within the new paradigm <cite>Romes187 posted [p:927073696] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Btw plenty of scientists get laughed out before being proven (more) correct The downside is the number of years it takes to realize they were correct are missed opportunities to live within the new paradigm</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 09/06/19 5:34:25 PM #78:	Machete posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... Machete posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys. The lack of understanding of things here is astounding. This is the biggest lie in the scientific community. You seem to believe that evolution is saying that modern monkeys have always been the same as they are now but then at some point some of them but not all of them evolved into humans. No, I'm saying that humans really don't know where they come from, but the school system have that evolution diagram in every class to perpetrate that lie that we evolved from monkeys. When you have a diagram of a monkey in an evolution diagram that looks exactly like a monkey, then that's what the school system is teaching children, regardless how of how truthful or untruthful it is. There are no real missing links that link humans to monkey in the evolutionary scale. The scientific community use a lot of confirmation bias over the years to link humans to monkeys. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:927073879] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys.</quote> The lack of understanding of things here is astounding.</quote> This is the biggest lie in the scientific community. </quote> You seem to believe that evolution is saying that modern monkeys have always been the same as they are now but then at some point some of them but not all of them evolved into humans.</quote> No, I'm saying that humans really don't know where they come from, but the school system have that evolution diagram in every class to perpetrate that lie that we evolved from monkeys. When you have a diagram of a monkey in an evolution diagram that looks exactly like a monkey, then that's what the school system is teaching children, regardless how of how truthful or untruthful it is. There are no real missing links that link humans to monkey in the evolutionary scale. The scientific community use a lot of confirmation bias over the years to link humans to monkeys.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#79	Post #79 was unavailable or deleted.
ultimate reaver 09/06/19 5:37:06 PM #80:	Machete posted... Wow. It's 2019 and we still have people saying "iT's JuSt a ThEoRy" and thinking they know what they are talking about. Might as well believe in flat earth lol it never ceases to horrify me how ignorant people are regarding science even now, but at the same time as the planet falls apart around us as we pretend it isn't happening it doesn't exactly surprise me --- butts <cite>ultimate reaver posted [p:927073999] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Machete posted... </cite> <quote>Wow. It's 2019 and we still have people saying "iT's JuSt a ThEoRy" and thinking they know what they are talking about. Might as well believe in flat earth lol</quote> it never ceases to horrify me how ignorant people are regarding science even now, but at the same time as the planet falls apart around us as we pretend it isn't happening it doesn't exactly surprise me </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#81	Post #81 was unavailable or deleted.
COVxy 09/06/19 5:38:16 PM #82:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... Even though I know you're probably just trolling, it's an important misconception to clear up. Evolution != the lineage of humans. Double post, whoops. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:927074063] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> Even though I know you're probably just trolling, it's an important misconception to clear up. Evolution != the lineage of humans. Double post, whoops.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 09/06/19 5:41:54 PM #84:	COVxy posted... Even though I know you're probably just trolling, it's an important misconception to clear up. Evolution ~= the lineage of humans. And yet, the scientific community continue to make silly diagrams like this and pass it off as fact when it's nothing more than a theory. Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so. If people expect me to fully believe in evolution (And I did when I was younger), they need to show more evidence. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:927074235] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Even though I know you're probably just trolling, it's an important misconception to clear up. Evolution ~= the lineage of humans.</quote> And yet, the scientific community continue to make silly diagrams like this and pass it off as fact when it's nothing more than a theory. Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so. If people expect me to fully believe in evolution (And I did when I was younger), they need to show more evidence. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 09/06/19 5:44:40 PM #85:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... And yet, the scientific community continue to make silly diagrams like this and pass it off as fact when it's nothing more than a theory. Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so. If people expect me to fully believe in evolution (And I did when I was younger), they need to show more evidence. You're not actually interested in the evidence because it requires you to actually read highly technical documents to understand it and can't be digested in cute little graph format in 20 seconds like you just posted. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:927074369] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted... </cite> <quote>And yet, the scientific community continue to make silly diagrams like this and pass it off as fact when it's nothing more than a theory. Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so. If people expect me to fully believe in evolution (And I did when I was younger), they need to show more evidence.</quote> You're not actually interested in the evidence because it requires you to actually read highly technical documents to understand it and can't be digested in cute little graph format in 20 seconds like you just posted. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThyCorndog 09/06/19 5:44:57 PM #86:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so. that's not what the diagram shows lmfao don't talk so confidently about things you don't understand --- https://imgur.com/6cPXvLN <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:927074386] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so.</quote> that's not what the diagram shows lmfao don't talk so confidently about things you don't understand</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 09/06/19 5:46:43 PM #87:	ThyCorndog posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so. that's not what the diagram shows lmfao don't talk so confidently about things you don't understand https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/11122181/Graphic-How-Tyrannosaurus-rex-evolved-into-modern-bird.html --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:927074457] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so.</quote> that's not what the diagram shows lmfao don't talk so confidently about things you don't understand</quote> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/11122181/Graphic-How-Tyrannosaurus-rex-evolved-into-modern-bird.html</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
-Cipher- 09/06/19 5:47:52 PM #88:	Whether you believe in it or not, evolution by its very nature is not observable so you can't really call it science as much as philosophy <cite>-Cipher- posted [p:927074501] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Whether you believe in it or not, evolution by its very nature is not observable so you can't really call it science as much as philosophy</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 09/06/19 5:48:14 PM #89:	-Cipher- posted... Whether you believe in it or not, evolution by its very nature is not observable so you can't really call it science as much as philosophy That is not correct at all. --- It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha." https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:927074527] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>-Cipher- posted... </cite> <quote>Whether you believe in it or not, evolution by its very nature is not observable so you can't really call it science as much as philosophy</quote>That is not correct at all. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThyCorndog 09/06/19 5:48:33 PM #90:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... ThyCorndog posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so. that's not what the diagram shows lmfao don't talk so confidently about things you don't understand https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/11122181/Graphic-How-Tyrannosaurus-rex-evolved-into-modern-bird.html I'm slapping that link outta my face. look at the diagram again and rotate it 90 degrees. now envision a family tree and understand how it's not showing a t rex evolved into a bird, but rather common ancestry. don't reply to me until you learned something --- https://imgur.com/6cPXvLN <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:927074549] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>Like I'm expected to believe that the T-Rex evolved to become the modern bird because their diagram said so.</quote> that's not what the diagram shows lmfao don't talk so confidently about things you don't understand</quote> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/11122181/Graphic-How-Tyrannosaurus-rex-evolved-into-modern-bird.html</quote> I'm slapping that link outta my face. look at the diagram again and rotate it 90 degrees. now envision a family tree and understand how it's not showing a t rex evolved into a bird, but rather common ancestry. don't reply to me until you learned something</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Muten_Jiren 09/06/19 5:49:03 PM #91:	Seems to be a pretty solid interpretation <cite>Muten_Jiren posted [p:927074562] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Seems to be a pretty solid interpretation</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
-Cipher- 09/06/19 5:51:29 PM #92:	Tyranthraxus posted... -Cipher- posted... Whether you believe in it or not, evolution by its very nature is not observable so you can't really call it science as much as philosophy That is not correct at all. It is. You can observe adaptation and mutation, but speciation is theorized to be an ever so slight chain of both that over the course of hundreds of thousands of years shifts into a new species. <cite>-Cipher- posted [p:927074670] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote>-Cipher- posted... </cite> <quote>Whether you believe in it or not, evolution by its very nature is not observable so you can't really call it science as much as philosophy</quote>That is not correct at all. </quote> It is. You can observe adaptation and mutation, but speciation is theorized to be an ever so slight chain of both that over the course of hundreds of thousands of years shifts into a new species.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heineken14 09/06/19 5:51:42 PM #93:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys. And here I was thinking the post saying intelligent design has more evidence than evolution was the dumbest post in the topic. Congrats on taking the crown. --- Rage is a hell of an anesthetic. <cite>Heineken14 posted [p:927074680] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>The theory that humans evolved from monkeys is so typical of human behavior. We look for any similarities in nature and we make a conclusion about it. There is very little science behind evolution to be honest, just a consensus. Just because we share some similar traits with monkey doesn't mean we evolve from monkeys. It's like saying a shark evolved from a dolphin because they both swim and have fins. There is a lack of evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. Humans have always been humans and monkeys have always been monkeys.</quote> And here I was thinking the post saying intelligent design has more evidence than evolution was the dumbest post in the topic. Congrats on taking the crown.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 09/06/19 5:52:59 PM #94:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... And yet Let's make this simple. Do you find the following statements terribly controversial? 1. Animals most well adapted to the environment they live in are most likely to survive. 2. Traits are heritable (meaning passed from parents to offspring) 3. Some traits make certain animals more adapted to their environment than others. Because that's pretty much all Darwin's original formulation was (plus or minus one or two i don't currently remember). Then modern synthesis simply specifies the 2nd point with genetic and molecular mechanisms. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:927074732] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>And yet</quote> Let's make this simple. Do you find the following statements terribly controversial? 1. Animals most well adapted to the environment they live in are most likely to survive. 2. Traits are heritable (meaning passed from parents to offspring) 3. Some traits make certain animals more adapted to their environment than others. Because that's pretty much all Darwin's original formulation was (plus or minus one or two i don't currently remember). Then modern synthesis simply specifies the 2nd point with genetic and molecular mechanisms.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kazi1212 09/06/19 5:58:01 PM #95:	Evolution is a great explanatory model for much of natural phenomena through time. But personally, I look at our kind, and I think to myself, were supposed to be the end product of billions years of evolution? Holy shit, probabilities are a bitch. --- My mind is an open book, do you find it entertaining? At least be original in your responses then. "Don't call me a God, call me a Sadist" <cite>Kazi1212 posted [p:927074946] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Evolution is a great explanatory model for much of natural phenomena through time. But personally, I look at our kind, and I think to myself, were supposed to be the end product of billions years of evolution? Holy shit, probabilities are a bitch.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LadyVyxx 09/06/19 6:09:51 PM #96:	Machete posted... Fuparulez posted... Of course I'm being serious. The funny thing is that most of the pro evolution arguments make more of a case for intelligent design. Venus, Earth, and Mars were three science experiments by an advanced culture. They terraformed the three of them, which is something we've proposed, then they engineered life to exist in every place, which is something we dabble with. Venus and Mars obviously failed. Look at the places life exists. Stuff living at the bottom of the ocean. That defies nature. Why would stuff want to live there when it could live... anywhere else. Somebody biologically engineered those creatures and put them there. "But we have vestigial organs, that's proof of evolution!" "We're 80% genetically similar to lettuce, that's proof of evolution!" No, that's just proof of lazy biological programmers. You ever done any coding? When you start a new task, you don't start from scratch. You take existing code and modify it to do what you need and extemporaneous code that doesn't hurt anything? Most of the time it gets left in. That's what our DNA is. Source code. Somebody wrote it. ... Wat After reading that I need a stiff drink and a cigarette. I dont even know how to unpack all that lunacy <cite>LadyVyxx posted [p:927075399] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>Fuparulez posted...</cite> <quote>Of course I'm being serious. The funny thing is that most of the pro evolution arguments make more of a case for intelligent design. Venus, Earth, and Mars were three science experiments by an advanced culture. They terraformed the three of them, which is something we've proposed, then they engineered life to exist in every place, which is something we dabble with. Venus and Mars obviously failed. Look at the places life exists. Stuff living at the bottom of the ocean. That defies nature. Why would stuff want to live there when it could live... anywhere else. Somebody biologically engineered those creatures and put them there. "But we have vestigial organs, that's proof of evolution!" "We're 80% genetically similar to lettuce, that's proof of evolution!" No, that's just proof of lazy biological programmers. You ever done any coding? When you start a new task, you don't start from scratch. You take existing code and modify it to do what you need and extemporaneous code that doesn't hurt anything? Most of the time it gets left in. That's what our DNA is. Source code. Somebody wrote it.</quote> ... Wat</quote> After reading that I need a stiff drink and a cigarette. I dont even know how to unpack all that lunacy</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 09/06/19 6:11:59 PM #97:	COVxy posted... GreatEvilEmpire posted... And yet Let's make this simple. Do you find the following statements terribly controversial? 1. Animals most well adapted to the environment they live in are most likely to survive. 2. Traits are heritable (meaning passed from parents to offspring) 3. Some traits make certain animals more adapted to their environment than others. Because that's pretty much all Darwin's original formulation was (plus or minus one or two i don't currently remember). Then modern synthesis simply specifies the 2nd point with genetic and molecular mechanisms. Traits are inheritable, but only within their own species. A recent discovery in Tanzania of human footprints from 3.66 million years ago shows that it's remarkably similar to how modern humans walk. The footprints also showed that the foot shape is also similar to modern humans. https://elifesciences.org/articles/19568 And yet evolutionary scientists claim that the modern human only existed for 200,000 years, not 3.66 million years. That's a difference of 3.46 million years. This basically threw a wrench into their whole monkey to human theory. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:927075495] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted...</cite> <quote>And yet</quote> Let's make this simple. Do you find the following statements terribly controversial? 1. Animals most well adapted to the environment they live in are most likely to survive. 2. Traits are heritable (meaning passed from parents to offspring) 3. Some traits make certain animals more adapted to their environment than others. Because that's pretty much all Darwin's original formulation was (plus or minus one or two i don't currently remember). Then modern synthesis simply specifies the 2nd point with genetic and molecular mechanisms.</quote> Traits are inheritable, but only within their own species. A recent discovery in Tanzania of human footprints from 3.66 million years ago shows that it's remarkably similar to how modern humans walk. The footprints also showed that the foot shape is also similar to modern humans. https://elifesciences.org/articles/19568 And yet evolutionary scientists claim that the modern human only existed for 200,000 years, not 3.66 million years. That's a difference of 3.46 million years. This basically threw a wrench into their whole monkey to human theory.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 09/06/19 6:19:11 PM #98:	I didn't ask you that, I only asked if you agreed with the statements provided. I assume the answer is yes, which means, great, you find evolution plausible. What you are skeptical of, and actually you should be a bit skeptical of, is the exact lineage of species. The evidence for exactly how species evolved is far less concrete than the evidence that evolution exists. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:927075794] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>I didn't ask you that, I only asked if you agreed with the statements provided. I assume the answer is yes, which means, great, you find evolution plausible. What you are skeptical of, and actually you should be a bit skeptical of, is the exact lineage of species. The evidence for exactly how species evolved is far less concrete than the evidence that evolution exists.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GreatEvilEmpire 09/06/19 6:25:20 PM #99:	COVxy posted... I didn't ask you that, I only asked if you agreed with the statements provided. I assume the answer is yes, which means, great, you find evolution plausible. What you are skeptical of, and actually you should be a bit skeptical of, is the exact lineage of species. The evidence for exactly how species evolved is far less concrete than the evidence that evolution exists. If you mean evolution in that sense, then yes, I believe it. Genetic mutation is common in all species and it allows for vaccines to work, as well as allow some human to develop immunity to certain diseases. My argument has always been that a monkey cannot evolve into a human. That's exactly what was stated in my original post. --- Sig under construction! <cite>GreatEvilEmpire posted [p:927076046] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>I didn't ask you that, I only asked if you agreed with the statements provided. I assume the answer is yes, which means, great, you find evolution plausible. What you are skeptical of, and actually you should be a bit skeptical of, is the exact lineage of species. The evidence for exactly how species evolved is far less concrete than the evidence that evolution exists.</quote> If you mean evolution in that sense, then yes, I believe it. Genetic mutation is common in all species and it allows for vaccines to work, as well as allow some human to develop immunity to certain diseases. My argument has always been that a monkey cannot evolve into a human. That's exactly what was stated in my original post.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ssjevot 09/06/19 6:32:54 PM #100:	The people advocating for intelligent design here are making great arguments against it. I just can't believe an intelligent designer would make people so adverse to evidence. --- Favorite Games: BlazBlue: Central Fiction, Street Fighter III: Third Strike, Bayonetta, Bloodborne thats a username you habe - chuckyhacksss <cite>ssjevot posted [p:927076342] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>The people advocating for intelligent design here are making great arguments against it. I just can't believe an intelligent designer would make people so adverse to evidence. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ssjevot 09/06/19 6:34:50 PM #101:	GreatEvilEmpire posted... My argument has always been that a monkey cannot evolve into a human. No one thinks they did? Like you understand that right? That no one thinks monkeys evolved into humans? We had a common ancestor that diverged millions of years ago into what would become humans and monkeys. --- Favorite Games: BlazBlue: Central Fiction, Street Fighter III: Third Strike, Bayonetta, Bloodborne thats a username you habe - chuckyhacksss <cite>ssjevot posted [p:927076414] in Do you con... [t:77987770]...</cite> <quote>GreatEvilEmpire posted... </cite> <quote>My argument has always been that a monkey cannot evolve into a human.</quote> No one thinks they did? Like you understand that right? That no one thinks monkeys evolved into humans? We had a common ancestor that diverged millions of years ago into what would become humans and monkeys. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > Do you consider evolution to be 100% proven fact? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Do you consider evolution to be 100% proven fact?