13
posted ago by StormzAComing ago by StormzAComing +17 / -4

Evolution, as we all know, is a conspiracy theory created by the Marxist Darwin gang. But few people know how to fight it other than asking questions such as:

How did life come from non-life?

https://healthaid1.quora.com/What-objects-created-by-the-human-being-few-know-that-they-already-existed-in-nature

Perhaps the better question is, how did nature evolve only a single, simple, insect to have a system we would call gears? Why don't primates? Why don't humans? Aren't we the "most evolved"?

Of course not. We were fearfully and wonderfully made by the God of the universe. And God seems to enjoy leaving Easter eggs in the fabric of reality.

Not only do we have geared insects, we have Trump-hair moths and octopi, blue lobsters, and bacteria that can break down plastic, even though they were not designed to.

Everything has a purpose. Perhaps this is further proof that we are here, not to engage in dubious conversation, but to wake up the sleeping masses from their dreams and awaken them to a brighter future.

As the writer of Ecclesiastes said, for everything there is a purpose, a time appointed under heaven. Isn't that coming into harmony with things today? Everything is falling into place for a wild Awakening!

Comments (60)
sorted by:
7
YuuugeAsshoe 7 points ago +7 / -0

I will reconsider evolution being real if someone can spontaneously create life from non living matter. If it happened once it should be repeatable. Unfortunately I think you would have as much luck spontaneously creating a porche

3
Onedude123 3 points ago +3 / -0

even the transcription and translation process involving dna,rna,protein etc needs all mechanisms present at once.

4
VicariousJambi 4 points ago +4 / -0

Every single evloutinist can never explain how fully functional things slowly evolved into what they are. The theory of evolution is basically just that there are slow small beneficial genetic mutations over time. This cannot explain things like wings and eyes. These things are only beneficial when they are fully formed. They all require multiple intricate parts to spontaneously exist at the same time in order to be of any benefit. A half formed wing is just a limb that doesn't do anything, a true waste of calories. A half formed eye doesn't work and is of literally no use, just a soft spot, a weakness. You could say that wings evolved from hands and arms and other limbs, but thats not showing inbetween the arm and wing when the limb can't function as either. That fact that wings look kind of like elongated hands and arms and fingers just shows me that the designer was the same.

2
ImBillCurtis 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is really astute. I wrapped my head around this for a long time.

1
VicariousJambi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank you for the compliment! What really got me on this concept was learning about how proteins and cells function. When they describe it as "its like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747" its actually further off than that.

Evolution and Dinosaurs Debunked - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtCIp9sgiE0&

2
ImBillCurtis 2 points ago +2 / -0

That’s a very good analogy. It’s so ridiculously complex to be absurd.

0
Poiuytrew 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm not an evolutionist, but eyes and wings do not have to be fully developed to be useful.

Look at all the gliding reptiles, mammals, and marsupials. None of them have fully formed wings, yet find that the excess skin and supporting limbs very useful.

As for eyes, a single cell can be photoreceptive...

1
VicariousJambi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Look at all the gliding reptiles, mammals, and marsupials. None of them have fully formed wings, yet find that the excess skin and supporting limbs very useful.

Right, they're useful. They're not wings. They're not a half-formed wing. They're a fully formed feature.

As for eyes, a single cell can be photoreceptive...

I think you're underestimating the complexity behind optics, and the complexity behind a single cell as well.

0
Poiuytrew 0 points ago +1 / -1

Is each step in a staircase not fully formed?

Gliding comes before flying in every evolutionary model. You're just doing mental gymnastics.

I know exactly how complex single cells are, and what is involved in optics, but overall complexity has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Your argument is 100% wrong if anything less than the modern expression of wings and eyes is not a net-negative.

Your argument is circular. Everything you postulate hinges on your preformulated belief.

1
VicariousJambi 1 point ago +1 / -0

So if you're right about evolution, if you're right that gliding -> wings we should be able to point to examples of this. Since evolution is this on-going, never stopping process we should be able to look around and see some of these inter-mediatory forms in animals that are currently alive.

Please show me one currently existing example of an intermediary form between a glider and a wing.

Also, how would that intermediary from be a useful genetic advantage, anyways? A glider with bones stuck in it is just a shitty glider with extra weight and calories. Thats not an advantage.

Like I said, they're both fully formed functional appendages that both have their uses.

I know exactly how complex single cells are, and what is involved in optics, but overall complexity has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Overall complexity has everything to do with the topic at hand, its a great counter argument to evolution.

If you believe in evolution then I don't think you fully comprehend the likelihood of cells forming in the first place.

I suggest watching this.

Evolution and Dinosaurs Debunked - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtCIp9sgiE0&

0
Poiuytrew 0 points ago +1 / -1

I dont believe in evolution. I want you to make better arguments.

0
Poiuytrew 0 points ago +1 / -1

You're going to need to be more specific in your definitions of 'life's and 'spontaneously create'.

They've already created a few synthetic lifeforms.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Life is a notoriously difficult thing to define as people still debate whether viruses are life. But let's just go with what we intuitively understand life to be and not something with the word synthetic in front of it. Top definition of synthetic on google: made by chemical synthesis, especially to imitate a natural product. Here is a video of a scientist talking about the impossibility/complexity of producing a single cell organism, which confronts our primordial ooz theory.

https://youtu.be/gK-Fn3u_u4k

-7
RagTag9899 -7 points ago +3 / -10

The Theory of Evolution does not cover Abiogenesis. You would know that if you weren't so fucking ignorant.

7
Questionable 7 points ago +7 / -0

Unhelpful and presumptuous.

-6
RagTag9899 -6 points ago +2 / -8

Ah yes. OP is not presumptuous at all.

Countless scientists over many decades just got it wrong. They cannot explain this thing that has nothing to do with the topic and I'm the one who figured it out

5
Questionable 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes. This thread is sub par. But your argument seems to consist of name calling, and making baseless claims.

-6
RagTag9899 -6 points ago +1 / -7

making baseless claims

oh the irony

3
Questionable 3 points ago +3 / -0

Again. You have made a baseless claim. All you had to do was point towards what you find ironic. But instead, you failed to even type out a full sentence.

I'm sorry. Where are my manners. Please allow me to point out your baseless claim. One which I have never heard before in my entire life.

The Theory of Evolution does not cover Abiogenesis.

Which is a statement you actually made in this thread. As for you?

oh the irony

Is this a guessing game? Because I really don't like guessing games.

Please, feel free to enlighten me, as I do not care to guess as to what it is you are thinking.

-3
RagTag9899 -3 points ago +1 / -4

One which I have never heard before in my entire life.

This just shows that you know nothing about the Theory of Evolution.

If you knew even the basics then you would not make such a stupid comment.

TOE deals with the development of life.

How life came to be is called Abiogenesis and there is no current scientific theory for it but several hypotheses.

You obviously don't know even the basics so it is hilarious how you so openly demonstrate your ignorance.

2
Smokratez 2 points ago +2 / -0

Calm your tits.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lmao, I'm ignorant because I don't know a fictional subject that 99.9% of people have never heard of... Abiogenesis even stole part of its name from the Bible because it requires just as much faith

3
ImBillCurtis 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don’t know about ALL life, but the biggest wake up for me was learning in biology about human chromosome 2. This was supposed to be the “aha gotcha creationists!” Moment in the scientific community: they were trying to answer the question of why, if humans had evolved from apes, did humans have 2 chromosomes less than apes?

They found the exons and telomeres stuck in the middle of human chromosome 2 indicating that there was a fusion some time ago of 2 chromosomes.

The problem is that in nature, this is pretty rare. And it’s usually completely different types of DNA sequences found in the middle. https://www.icr.org/article/human-chromosome-2-fusion-never-happened

3
TurnToGodNow 3 points ago +3 / -0

Look at just some of the astounding adaption animals have to their environments. It isn't conceivable those were all by random mutations leading to such complex, region specific enhancements. There is definitely a supernatural realm, and a creative intelligence that guides the universe.

2
KiloRomeo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Natural selection can't explain the rates of changes of intelligent species. Sexual selection might be able to but even then it cannot explain gaps in the records. Thus we has intelligent sexual selection and intelligent development between gaps in the records....

1
Onedude123 1 point ago +1 / -0

The model of evolution fits the original view of an eternal present ongoing universe. So t would allow for the slow gradual change that goes with their theory .

-1
RagTag9899 -1 points ago +1 / -2

What are those rates and why can they not be explained? Can I see your data and calculation, please?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Smokratez 1 point ago +2 / -1

Lovely.

1
Arturhawkwing 1 point ago +3 / -2

That still leaves the question of who created the creator. Same conundrum.

2
VicariousJambi 2 points ago +2 / -0

God is omnipotent (all powerful, above all others).

The question "where did ___ come from" does not apply to God, because he is omnipotent. If God needed to be created, that would mean hes not omnipotent.

The question does apply to living beings, because we are not omnipotent.

1
Onedude123 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not really marxist science before big bang prescribed to an eternal universe that was just there; there was no issue with its everlastingness.

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Quite frankly a creator is far less of a stretch than than the big bang theory

1
IGOexiled 1 point ago +2 / -1

The creator didn't get created, it just is. In the same way no one created pi, it just necessarily exists because of how lines and curves work.

1
Arturhawkwing 1 point ago +1 / -0

By that explanation, the building blocks of life could just exist and spontaneously assemble throughout the universe in a cyclic manner.

At the end of the day, our minds just can't comprehend the concept of something without a beginning.

1
IGOexiled 1 point ago +2 / -1

That's what I figure. Any planet next to a star that gives liquid water will eventually make life, because in only 4 words, that's what carbon does.

I bet you'll find life deep inside most planets and moons nearer the core where it is between 0-100 degrees.

0
Smokratez 0 points ago +1 / -1

The topic was evolution being fake. Don't muddy topics.

0
Arturhawkwing 0 points ago +1 / -1

The question was posed, "how did life come from non-life?" My point is that this same question can apply to intelligent design as well. Where did the creator come from? If the Creator was always there, why couldn't the recipe for life always have existed as well?

Personally, I believe there is a creator, albeit one that bears no resemblance to the scriptures. I think we are probably in some kind of nested simulation. Just like any creation scenario, the question will always be how the first one came into being. Maybe as creatures who see beginnings and endings hundreds of times a day, our minds just can't comprehend the idea of something with no beginning.

0
Smokratez 0 points ago +2 / -2

I'll leave you alone with your thoughts.

1
Inbredsandwich1 1 point ago +2 / -1

Evolution is automatically false by moral standards. If we really are nothing but smarter apes then there is no such thing as good or bad. There is no such thing as law, there is no such thing as evil. There is no such thing as murder, there is no such thing as "inhumane." Natural Selection. Survival of the Fittest. Anyone with a brain could see the moral precedents this false reasoning sets, but then again these are the same people that worship reddit-tier soyence. I'm not siding with the people that say a man can become a woman or that murdering babies is a right. Which is ironic in of itself because what is "right" if we are just animals, but don't expect these people to reason logically on such matters.

0
Poiuytrew 0 points ago +1 / -1

Morals do not come from god nor from a belief in god.

0
Smokratez 0 points ago +1 / -1

There is no such thing as law, there is no such thing as evil. There is no such thing as murder, there is no such thing as "inhumane." Natural Selection. Survival of the Fittest.

This is what satanists are trying to meme into reality. All those br games and apocalypic movies where we all hunt and eat each other. Nothing more than lame group manipulation.

-2
Phenixxxx -2 points ago +3 / -5

Lol...and the world is flat

1
Questionable 1 point ago +2 / -1

Well, a mostly flat habitable realm, known as the world, residing on a massive planet within liquid space known as ether, with a core made of liquid iron known as the black sun, that acts as a nuclear reactor, bouncing it's radiation off of the firmament, similar to the permanent storms of Jupiter and Saturn. Which appear to be the sun and the moon from within.

OH... I mean... Hah hah hah, flat Earth funny!

1
YuuugeAsshoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

This can be checked by simply observing objects that should be obscured by the curvature of the earth. Try it out on a clear day.

0
Smokratez 0 points ago +1 / -1

There are mountains and valleys. Saying it's flat is stupid. That's why satanists made questioning the spinning globe delusion linked to "flat Earth", because that instantly sounds stupid.

-2
MrPim -2 points ago +4 / -6

The only proof you have offered is the proof you do not understand evolution. And, not everything has a purpose.

5
Questionable 5 points ago +6 / -1

He also asks Questions, and then answers himself assertively, as though in doing so, those answers become facts. Which of course makes it true.

I say, therefore it is -René Descartes

Can't debate that!

-2
RagTag9899 -2 points ago +3 / -5

How did life come from non-life?

And with this sentence, you already demonstrate that you know nothing at all about the Theory of Evolution.

You creationists should first learn what it actually says before pretending to "debunk" it.

I bet you cannot even explain how "Evolution" is defined.

0
Poiuytrew 0 points ago +1 / -1

That's the problem with almost all debates nowadays. It's always strawman vs strawman.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle

-2
Ep0ch -2 points ago +1 / -3

Yawn, evolution must mean the devolution of an invasive species not suited to its natural habitat. Correct me, if that isn't a fair assessment. The only thing humans cause is extinction. They significantly change natural ecosystems until there is no balance. They are invasively unrivaled until nature responds. Every other species they claim to have evolved from lives in harmony with its environment on simple checks and balances having specific roles. If something else invades that habitat, or their numbers don't match simple survival equations, an ecosystem keeping them in check by their dedicated species role's, all are calculated, extinction is caused. Humans have massively upset this, therefore they cannot have evolved and specifically only devolve. Maybe one day they might stop being apes. But it seems no matter what they do they're absolutely invasive to this Planet. It was suited to their demands and not evolutionary towards it.