Nothing makes an atheist seethe as much as disproving evolution for some reason.

Nothing makes an atheist seethe as much as disproving evolution for some reason.
Here's the gist of my argument against evolution.
If evolution which is the biological mechanism of a species exists because of its necessity for survival, then there should be no preys or order to nature.
If preys exists, if there is an order to nature, then evolution isn't necessary meaning it doesn't exist, because it only existed because of its necessity.
This compounded with the mathematical impossibility of abiogenesis pretty much proves creationism as a whole.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    *order in

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If evolution which is the biological mechanism of a species exists because of its necessity for survival, then there should be no preys or order to nature.

    That isn't an argument its barely even coherent English

    But you go on thinking you've somehow disproven the billions of man hours of work conducted by trained experts in their fields of research, people who can actually type a coherent sentence in the English language and who have created the foundation of virtually all modern biological sciences, you silly little nerd you

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's not an argument, its the bandwagon fallacy.
      What the pic is trying to say is that a zebra would be able to defend against or even predate upon a lion given the implications of evolution.
      I get what you're trying to say with the science we have now and it would have been valid but the theory of evolution doesn't imply just adaptive changes over the course of time, it states that the species in itself would completely change to a whole other species for survival purposes.
      These aren't science, these are bonkers theory.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    evolution works at the species level not at the individual level.
    Is your argument seriously that it's fake because one animal is able to kill another as prey?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >evolution works at the species level not at the individual level.
      The individual makes the species anon.
      >Is your argument seriously that it's fake because one animal is able to kill another as prey?
      Not exactly but that the prey would remain a prey and the predator would remain a predator no matter how much time is given.
      This isn't evolutionary.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    From fish to philosophers? What's stopping a zebra from mauling a lion given evolution and time which it already supposedly had?

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution isn't even a legit scientific theory, it's globohomosexual science.

    ?si=7NQjS35CTxWgR-Ol

    ?si=B59ICEXp_iogjIIL
    The farce is sustained by the sheer peer pressure of globalism.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >It is our contention that if random is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws. -Murray Eden.
    Kek.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If evolution which is the biological mechanism of a species for survival exists because it's necessary, then there should be no preys or order in nature.
    >If preys exists, if there is an order in nature, then evolution isn't necessary meaning it doesn't exist, because it only existed because of its necessity.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Saying the current theory of evolution is fallible does not equate to creationism being proven.

    Also you initial argumentation for why the theory of evolution is incorrect can be easily disproven. Just because there exists a hierarchical structure does not mean evolution isn't necessary. Evolution allows creatures to slowly adapt and refine themselves allowing them to more efficiently create offspring which is beneficial to survival regardless of hierarchy.

    Also abiogenesis is extremely rare but you have a sample size of billions of years over trillions of potential planets. It isn't too much of a stretch to say it happened at least once.

    The real failing in the current theory of evolution is the Cambrian explosion which saw the number different species skyrocket at a rate basically implausible at any historic mutation rate. Maybe that's when god or something introduced life to the planet who knows.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Just because there exists a hierarchical structure does not mean evolution isn't necessary.
      It does though. A hierarchical structure defeats the whole point of evolution.
      >Evolution allows creatures to slowly adapt and refine themselves allowing them
      To be more nutritious to their predators?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The reproductive system of life forms aren't exactly evolution. It isn't an defensive or offensive mutation. Its just a staple of biological lifeforms for its continued existence and every single life form has it, both the prey and the predator.
      You're denying evolution to the prey now you see.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're arguing with yourself at this point.

        >The reproductive system of life forms aren't exactly evolution.
        Reproduction creates slight amounts of mutation which over long periods of time can compound into new species.

        >It isn't an defensive or offensive mutation.
        Never said it was. Mutations are random variances in dna which are not necessary helpful. But good variations are often rewarded genetically as the species are more likely to survive.

        >Its just a staple of biological lifeforms for its continued existence and every single life form has it, both the prey and the predator.
        No shit

        >You're denying evolution to the prey now you see.
        If a bird evolves over time to get a thinner beaks so it can eat insects which learned to burrow deeper underground to get more nutrients. Does that mean birds didn't evolve because they're the natural prey of cats. And before you go full moron we can use induction to prove evolution is possible in all cases of hierarchy if I can prove the first case and the nth +1 case. The first case is plants which evolved to maximise the their energy from the sun then the next organism optimises eating the plant and the next organism optimises the organism that eats the organism that eats the plant and so on.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Again, what you are proposing is what I called adaptive changes which occur over time which works without evolution under the creationist worldview. That there is a hierarchical structure, an order in nature. It's perfectly fine. Nobody denies that. Or are you conceding?
          But again, given the kind of evolution which propels fish to philosophers, what's stopping a zebra from mauling a tiger given time and evolution, which it already supposedly had? Shouldn't evolution help the prey do that given evolution?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Adaptive change just sounds like Christian cope. How does that differ from the theory of evolution?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well first of all, we don't believe fish becomes philosophers.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Adaptive changes is literally just adaptive changes, now I'm just repeating myself but it doesn't take any issues with the hierarchical structure, all life forms have them, but they can't evolve or overstep the boundaries of the order of nature like evolution would.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a pure evolutionist. I do think there are certain boundaries for species and that there isn't just one original organism. But a fish becoming a philosopher does have some logic behind it unlike some random micro organism evolving to become both a human and a fungus due to pure variation. At least a fish and human share similar anatomy.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          We are questioning the inconsistency of YOUR worldview, the evolutionist, mine is perfectly fine.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    [chorus]
    i'm a big dog big bear n*gga i'm a lion
    i'm the predator of the prey that is hiding
    oh my oh my i have found you n*gga
    don't you run from me lil' n*gga
    you are not fast enough
    you are not brave enough
    you are out of luck
    now it's time for you to die very rough

    [verse]
    you have been warned
    there is nowhere to run
    you will pay the price
    i will take your life
    there's no running back
    now your loved ones are so sad
    you had a choice, but you failed

    [chorus]
    i'm a big dog, big bear, n*gga, i'm a lion
    i'm the predator of the prey that is hiding
    oh my, oh my, i have found you, n*gga
    don't you run from me, lil' n*gga
    you are not fast enough
    you are not brave enough
    you are out of luck
    now it's time for you to die very rough

    [outro]
    (ayy man, where the f*ck is mario judah?)

    Alternate titles:
    die very rough mario judah lyrics
    big dog big bear lyrics
    dont you run from me little n song
    ima big dog big bear song

    Popular lines:
    i'm a big dog big bear n*gga i'm a lion
    i'm the predator of the prey that is hiding
    oh my oh my i have found you n*gga
    don't you run from me lil' n*gga

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hope this is bait.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I hope you have an actual argument.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Evolution so evidently exists ~ Evolutiontards
      >Giant swallowtail caterpillar exists
      At what stage in the evolutionary process did giant swallowtail caterpillar "Evolve" to look like bird droppings?. What is the mechanism that enables a species to take on physical characteristics to dissuade would-be predators? Why don't more species use said mechanism to evolve characteristics to dissuade would-be predators?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The ones that looked slightly more like shit didn't get eaten compaired to the not shit ones.
        This is a progressive thing too. So the more shitlike, the less likely to be eaten. So as time goes on, and random mutations happen. The ones that look shittier don't get eaten. This leads to a very convincing looking shitbug.
        The biggest problem morons have here, is conceptualizing the time scale. We're talking hundreds, if not thousands of generations here, and a lot of selective pressures. As if there's not enough predation to wipe out a large swath of the non shit looking ones, then it doesn't become a selected trait, and you don't get any true shitbugs. Just a slight uptick in shitbug RNG.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Too smart for this board. There be morons here. moron jannies. moron bakers. morons everywhere. Jesus is King of Israel.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >have faith in God
    >constantly trying to prove to everyone that it’s the most logical position, which means it doesn’t actually require faith
    >checkmate atheists

    It would be like atheists using religious texts to make their points. If you believe in magic man in the sky, why are you desperately trying to prove it? You’ve already abandoned reason. Just pray and enjoy your life

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    behind every meme flag is an israeli flag

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am amazed at how moronic and bad your argument is
    it made me laugh
    I was expecting more.. like something beyond what a child could do

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    ur used up syphillis dick

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *