why was ross so upset the phoebe didn't believe in evolution?

why was ross so upset the phoebe didn't believe in evolution?

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean it's a huge indicator that the person if a fricking moron if they believe something other than evolution

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      cope, science is a big scam

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Uh oh we got a free thinker

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is that better than a sponsored thinker?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this moron thinks he can use inferences from the observable universe to eacape the despair of infinite regression

        >"DNA just MUTATES man"
        >"proof? well it's extremely rare and we can't capture it"
        >"but it has happened billions of times in exactly the right direction to ensure survival of a species"

        This is what materialists actually believe

        Mutations are real, and they aren't always perfect.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He says, writing on his magic machine, communicating with people across the globe

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what the frick else are you supposed to do

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this moron thinks he can use inferences from the observable universe to eacape the despair of infinite regression

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Frick you, I'm a creationism CHAD

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Not believing in evolution is basically saying kids aren’t like their parents. It’s profoundly anti-family to not believe in evolution.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        believing in evolution is also why I'm racist

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      KNEEL

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excuse me mate but were you there? No? Then shut the frick up then.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How do you explain:
      >Sharks
      >Crocodiles
      >wienerroaches
      That are basically the same since 200 million billion trillion years ago

      inb4 "Oh the third T5 vertebrae is different so that means it's a completely different animal non-related, from a common ancestor probably ;)"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Natural selection rewards optimal survival strategies, such as being a shark, by not punishing it for staying the same

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >natural selection not happening is also evidence of natural selection
          unassailable logic

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But... that IS an example of natural selection happening. Are you stupid?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Isn't it weird that the thing that disproves evolution is animals that don't evolve, but somehow you find it ok to rope that into evolution

          Their immune systems have greatly evolved over time. Stop judging superficial things you libtard

          >Surviving a flu is the same as not changing morphologically for 200 million years
          K bruh

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What's a piece of evidence that would disprove natural selection, anon

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A species failing to change in response to a change in environment for which it is no longer optimized
            Sharks don’t disprove this because they’re ideally suited for the oceans and their prey. If fish became 10% faster and sharks didn’t grow faster too, they just caught fewer fish and became skinnier for the next thousand generations, that would be a falsification of the natural selection process.

            Make sure to raise your hand in class if any of the words scared or confused you

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              flies will not change in thousands of generations if you turn the temperature up, down feed them, more oxygen less oxygen, different diets etc. they stay the way they are, they don't become spiders.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You should really google stuff before confidently claiming it
                https://www.the-scientist.com/fruit-flies-evolve-in-time-with-the-seasons-study-69816#:~:text=Fruit%20flies%20are%20already%20known,within%208%20to%209%20generations.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes we know about epigenetic drift, that doesn't change my point about macro evolution. they stay flies and will forever, is the point.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not if 1000 generations later the descendants of the original flies are genetically dissimilar enough that they couldn’t produce viable offspring with their first ancestors. That’s what speciation is, the accumulation of tiny mutations in response to selection pressures until a threshold of difference is reached

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >every single other fish and sea mammal changed (presumably, because the enviroment changed) over the course of 200 million years
              >sharks didn't changed
              Fish did became 10% faster, and bigger, and smaller, and then slower, and fewer, and then plenty, and faster again, and up and down and flying and deeper, the ocean has changed species significantly
              Except you know
              This handful of other species

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Their immune systems have greatly evolved over time. Stop judging superficial things you libtard

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >oh yeah well 200 million billion trillion years ago everything was the same so how is it different now??
        because of evolution
        what a moron

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's a reason why it's called the THEORY of evolution. You can't prove, without a doubt, it exists.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        holy shit its been nearly 20 years and there are STILL 12 year olds writing this shit on Cinemaphile

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Holy shits its been nearly 20 years and there are STILL fedora wearing chuds pushing their tired theories

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the theory of evolution has not changed in hundreds of years
            >every religion gets patched every few years to remain up to date with [current thing]
            really makes me think

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >darwain's theory of evolution has only been around for less than 200 years
              >theory hasn't evolved or become an observable truth
              >religions have been around 1000s of years
              >their core messages stand the sands if time and are continuously analyzed
              Guess you didn't think too much there, huh buddy?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >literally directly lying on Cinemaphile
                if your religion would dissapear like dust if all their books got burned and all that knowledge lost, that doesnt mean its standing the test of time moron
                likewise evolutions replicateable observations mean it DOES stand the test of time despite being so new compared to religion
                you are literally in denial anonymously online, why not just go away and believe in your BELIEF system? so much for calling evolution 'just a theory lol' when religions are literally called 'belief's'

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >when you've abandoned God and can't even feel his light
                Sad. I pray for you sister.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ok thanks for conceding

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Conceding to what? Your lost soul? You haven't said anything noteworthy. Just regurgitate what you've read and heard. If the books/scriptures were all burnt and your theories of evolution went up in flames, the human spirit will still ask Why. They will still find a spiritual connection. It's honestly sad that you're so numb to it, so all a person can do is prey for lost souls like you. Your concession is unfortunate.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you literally directly conceded already, giving a limpdick answer now which doesnt refute anything and is just a cope is beyond pointless and actually just makes you look EVEN WORSE that all you could think in 10 minutes is 'yeah the religions might disappear forever (and not stand the test of time like i said) but THE HUMAN SPIRIT will still exist!'
                you are not capable of independant thought and its showing

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All these words and all you've exposed is your lack in reading comprehension. It's okay champ, maybe it'll improve once you move past HS. Praying for you btw.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >2nd time failing to respond while accusing me of what you're doing and running away crying
                sorry praying* not crying
                so sorry that anonymous words on Cinemaphile have been shattering your world view effortlessly for 20 years and you have not improved your position once in that time, that sucks man

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Holy projection. Your asshurt responses are amusing if nothing else. Still praying for you btw.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >he said after 3 asshurt responses in a row
                you have entered the 'no u' phase of losing it on Cinemaphile, good luck

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >cope
                >no u
                >literally
                Do you have one original thought? Still praying for you btw

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >replicateable observations
                Replicate it for us then.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >hundreds of years
              Charles Darwin, famous 14th century scientist

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You might as well be chudGPT your responses are so imitative

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >being this dense
              Might want to loosen that fedora, think it's cutting off the vital circulation your brain so desperately needs

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Gonna cry?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Intelligent Design, evolution is too complicated for just randomness

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Incorrect. Even the famous picture, pic related, used to teach and support evolution is fraudulent. The German naturalist who painted it was convicted in court for it being fraudulent, yet you find it in most textbooks supporting evolution. Secondly and more importantly evolution has never been evidenced on the macro scale only on the micro. Small changes in birds beaks etc yes but radically species changes such as frog to horse nothing! Zilch, zero. Lastly teleology, the molecular machines which turn a single cell embryo into a fully formed adult also discounts evolution and Darwin himself even stated that if such planned changes were discovered then his own theory about natural selection were invalid. Study more!! Nothing worse than an uneducated lad claiming others are moronic.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you sound like a maniac

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ahh the moron can't think. Luckily I have a master's in this shit. try harder dope

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yeah lol i get called that a lot

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Fair play mate. That made me laugh

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >planned changes to genetics
        by who?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Look up teleology. You obviously have never heard of it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this doesnt answer the question at all unless you are implying that every species itself has an end goal hardwired into itself about where its evolution is leading AND has awareness of that

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well then you disagree with one of the founders of neo darwinism and still don't understand teleology. I'll give you his quote so now that properly and not a five minute wiki. Quote 'The biologistJ. B. S. Haldaneobserved that "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public'

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and how does 'Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public' answer 'who is making planned changes to genetics'

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not reading or teaching you the fundamentals of biology. Read and don't be lazy. More importantly, don't debate a topic you clearly have no grounding or understanding in

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >dont debate unless you're going to deflect to answer things over and over like me

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Also several examples of exactly that in biology 'Why does a baby deer without training know to run away from a mountain loin? How does it even know what a lion looks like and why it's dangerous?

              How did body temperature regulation come about? Every system would have died without it so there was no time for evolution?

              Molecular machine builders? They had to be there as they are inherent to multi cellular organisms and provide no function other then creating very fine tuned specific complexity.

              Also this debate has raged for several hundred years and evolutionary biologists are split on it with most favoring teleology as it matches physics etc while natural selection on its own doesn't.

              You are not smarter then several nobel winners, your just not well read in the topic of evolutionary biology

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you're talking about cell directives and instinct, both of which are encompassed by evolution, also the self awareness of this process by all species undergoing it is still absent

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Anyone who does not believe in the genetic differences in the races is anti evolution

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny because biologists and paleontologists often feud, with the former accusing the latter of having non-Darwinian views of evolution

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's not true. if you are equating the mass extinction debate with the creationism vs evolution debate, then you are wronger than wrong.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't get it, why?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Neo-Darwinians are notoriously aggressive about gatekeeping anyone they perceive to be anti-materialist in Biology. The neo-Darwinian party line is that all macroevolution is entirely explained by microevolutionary processes which themselves are reducible to microbiological processes that are well-known. Suggesting anything other than this makes neo-Darwinians flip the frick out and accuse everybody in a ten mile radius of being a crypto-vitalist.

        A famous example is
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
        when Stephen Jay Gould argued for punctuated equilibrium and people interpreted him as doing Goldschmidt-style "Lamarckianism" (really a misnomer but they love using it). Don't even think about mentioning Paul Kammerer around them.

        They also deny that Darwin had strong non-neo-Darwinian beliefs about evolution, which he did.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because if you meet someone who doesn't TRUST SCIENCE it's a huge red flag. they're very likely to be an anti-vaxxer and probably voted for Trump. Ross is an ~~*expert*~~ and she's basically defying his ~~*expertise*~~.

    Phoebe was also a known Holocaust denier, along with Joey.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >evolution was guided by god to make humanity
    There was that so hard

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Intelligent design makes more sense than random chance, but ultimately God-based theories don't explain where God came from. It's always a dead end.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's not random, it's the only chance. Put water and carbon and atmosphere and just the right temperature, leave it for millions of years, molecules will get more and more complex until they form cells. There is no reason not to, it's the only chance, it's like water flowing downwards

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          chemicals don't spontaneously move towards complexity, they quickly degrade and/or form lumps of inert material.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well that's simply wrong. There are plenty of atoms that form spontaneous bonds with basically anything they can find. Lithium being a great example. Oxygen as well. There's no free oxygen in the air, it's all O2, two oxygen atoms bonded together. Place two single oxygen atoms together and they will "spontaneously" move towards complexity by bonding with each other. The only reason that isn't more prevalent is because most of it has happened already. If we went back enough billions of years ago, the earth would still be forming and the gradients would all be evening out.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >chemicals don't spontaneously move towards complexity
            they literally do. You can make salt or sugar crystals at home right now you dingleberry.
            "life" as we define is actually an incredibly likely thing to happen on planets with the right components for it. It is essential a randomized structure that over time became able to interact with its environment more and more. 1 billion years, try to fathom that.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >literally
              Go back

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                is this you running away again

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >She's STILL here
                You haven't convinced anyone in this thread you know anything. Still praying for you btw.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                thats a long way of typing 'yes'

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your concession is still unfortunate. Poor gal.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It doesn't explain how things evolve. The theory is just "well nature does a thing that's LoL so randum XD and then if it the animal with that randum thing fricks more animals they get the randum thing and then it's evolution".

          Never once does it explain how an animal that lives in a green forest would end up with green skin. WHAT causes this. I can't consciously change my skin colour to blend in when I visit Toronto, I stick out like a sore thumb and get assaulted or threatened.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sub 60 IQ post

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's mutation. Put a billion creatures in a green forest, see which ones survive, the ones that blend in will survive more and their descendants will look more and more like that. How could it be otherwise? If the green insect hides in between the leaves and survives, the red ones will die out in number, there is no chance for them.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              bitches dig bright colors

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So it's by random chance that our genetics just randomly (again, not programmed to do such things apparently) experiment with color, shape, texture, lighting, etc. all just randomly.

              So again, doesn't explain why the initial mutation occurred in the first place. Why did the animal's skin even change from blue to green? And how did they even survive long enough if this process takes millions of years?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Radiation anon. From the sun. It's pounding your balls right now changing the genetic coding of your sperm.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Alright well I'm going to concentrate really hard to make my sperm into supersperm and then when I plap in ladies they will get insta pregnant with 7 foot tall gigababies

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not that random, anon. It is "programmed by the environment", so to speak. The environment, the conditions dictates where to go. It's gradual, it's not a blue animal turning green out of the sudden, you'd see them change just slightly generation after generation. You can even see that in dog breeds from 200 years ago and the ones we have now, look at how they changed.

                The randomization you speak is in the numbers, you have trillions of sperm cells, each containing half of your code, but two of them are not the same. You don't get to pick, a bunch of variables will make some stand out and make it. That's why we are all like our parents, but at the same time we are not like them exactly, our siblings are not exact like us.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >look at how they changed.
                Almost looks like it was by design.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In that case, it was, sure.

                AI needs millions of cycles in order to learn how to walk. If you think evolution happened in one go where we have a fully functional human brain by banging rocks together you are moronic.

                >If you think evolution happened in one go where we have a fully functional human brain by banging rocks together you are moronic.
                How do you get that from what I'm saying? Of course, we are talking about hundreds of millions of generations of trillions of animals.

                You say it isn't random, but it's not a conscious choice. So if it's dictated by our environment that means our DNA must somehow "talk" to our senses, even on a subconscious level. That doesn't sound random to me at all, sounds like the kind of thing that would happen if someone felt it would be advantageous. You know, like MACHINE LEARNING.

                But no, that would mean something might've designed us and that's impossible.

                I'm not even religious but I frickin hate sciencecucks more than religious cucks, at least the latter just straight up admit "yeah it's just my faith no proof or anything" and move on with their day.

                >So if it's dictated by our environment that means our DNA must somehow "talk" to our senses
                It doesn't talk to our sense, it's just natural selection. As in, selected by nature, selected by the environments. Those fit have offspring and that DNA is replicated, if a DNA mutation is not beneficial, that creature won't be able to reproduce and thus, there is no way for that branch to go.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It doesn't talk to our sense, it's just natural selection.

                Again you're not answering the glaring question: what triggers the mutation in the first place.

                Not asking why it continues or doesn't continue to pass on to future generations. We know how inherited traits work.

                Asking HOW or WHY the mutation first occurs. This is the questions literally no one ITT is willing to try to answer.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's that magic thing that molecules do sometimes where they just become other, more complex molecules for no reason. You know that thing that happens sometimes in nature.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But they do that all the time. See

                Well that's simply wrong. There are plenty of atoms that form spontaneous bonds with basically anything they can find. Lithium being a great example. Oxygen as well. There's no free oxygen in the air, it's all O2, two oxygen atoms bonded together. Place two single oxygen atoms together and they will "spontaneously" move towards complexity by bonding with each other. The only reason that isn't more prevalent is because most of it has happened already. If we went back enough billions of years ago, the earth would still be forming and the gradients would all be evening out.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                chemicals can bond to other chemicals, but they can't create biochemicals. that's never been observed.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Again you're not answering the glaring question: what triggers the mutation in the first place.
                Radiation, usually from the sun.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >magic sky energy reaches down and makes the change
                totally not a religion btw

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So radiation from the sun causes random breaks in DNA causing random genetic mutations that occur in all living things from the time life began and it literally cycles through stuff just randomly like an animal having the perfect color to blend in with leaves, or even the ability to change its color like a chameleon or octopus. And this is somehow responsible for all life on earth being exactly how it is in present day, plant and animal.

                That is equally, if not more moronic, than being Muslim.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I honestly do not see what is so unbelievable about that at all, yeah. What part are you having trouble believing specifically?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The part where people subscribe to this over religion, or vice versa. They're both equally unbelievable, I'm more curious to know how people settle on believing some incestuous moron gay from the 1800s over some druggie handyman from 2000 years ago.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They're both equally unbelievable,
                So what's the alternative belief? People looked at both explanations and picked the one they liked better for whatever reason. This isn't something you can just believe 'nothing' about, we have to have come from somewhere. Again, I'm not really sure what your issue is.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >This isn't something you can just believe 'nothing' about, we have to have come from somewhere. Again, I'm not really sure what your issue is.

                You MUST pick a side. You MUST choose something. It is simply not POSSIBLE for you to say that you don't know, and that you believe no one truly knows, because there are two groups who BELIEVE they know. Now PICK a side.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You must pick a "side" if you're making an argument.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >don't ask questions or admit you don't know something, goy
                >just represent your side
                >don't stop for anything

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Religion is more right than science in that life has a spiritual component. Its not a sky daddy. We came first we are the central component of this place. This world doesn't exist without us.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                people picked one or the other because they're tribalistic and felt peer pressure to do so, especially in the olden days when to not be religious was to get your head chopped off.

                same is true now, except they don't kill you they just shame you and fire you from your job if you don't TRUST THE SCIENCE

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                over nearly 4 billion years this has been happening. Do you have any idea how many generations that is?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >over nearly 4 billion years this has been happening.
                big if true

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >over nearly 4 billion years this has been happening. Do you have any idea how many generations that is?

                You don't know it's been happening that long. We ironically have more recorded about the time of Christ than we do about what "scientists" claim to know.

                At best we can reasonably measure things like geological phenomenon on a scale of millions of years. Radio carbon dating is extremely inaccurate to a point where it really should bother sciencegays but it doesn't.

                >oh well if we're 15 millions years off
                >same difference!

                Science has become a cult just like any religion.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The oldest known fossils of prokaryotic (bacterial) cells are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks in Western Australia, dated to 3.5 billion years ago. These bacteria were photosynthetic, but it's likely that simpler non-photosynthetic bacteria evolved before this.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We can totally rely on the science used to date those bacteria too, after all it's...well...I mean we told you it works...not like you can test it yourself...and we can't really demonstrate that it works in any real way...just trust us you bigot wtf get a booster you're killing people goddamn it wear a mask updoot me daddy

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What are you talking about? The white robed initiates go into their secret place and perform arcane techniques to reveal the Truth, then they come out and share it with us. It's not a religion why would you say that.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What are you talking about? The white robed initiates go into their secret place and perform arcane techniques to reveal the Truth, then they come out and share it with us. It's not a religion why would you say that.

                hearty kek

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and we can't really demonstrate that it works in any real way
                Whoa source?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Our source that it works is that we told you it works because here's a study we performed and checked ourselves that backs up the science we used to justify this other science. In other words it's true because we said this other stuff is true, and we based this stuff off that stuff. So therefore it's true. Stop asking questions now, we're the question askers and answerers.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Huh wow see that was almost a complete sentence and you certainly did use words in a le HECKIN snarky way, but for some reason it also seemed like you dodged the question because you’re an insecure moron. Can you actually prove that axiomatic negative you were bragging about to all your moronic friends just now?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >tries to change the subject after making a broad claim

                Typical reddit homosexualry. Sorry pal, we don't give updoots here.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >he’s still deflecting
                I wonder if theism explains how desperate you got all at once

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You still haven't addressed the original point, which is that ultimately the basis of proof is given and validated by the people making the claim. In other words, it's true because we say it's true and if you disagree you just don't understand science. Like, get your own particle accelerator and test it yourself if you don't believe us. Oh, you don't have 3 trillion dollars? Guess you better just take our word for it then.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You’re applying deep institutional mistrust of things like the LHC and astrophysical satellites to things which are much less “insulated” by a priesthood of specialists and cost barriers. For example, do you believe the earth is flat? Some people do, at least until many of them realized that you can purchase off-the-shelf laser pointers and gyroscopes to test the theory yourself. The same is true for other scientific theories like the theory of relativity and the process of natural selection.

                We live in a wonderful time where neither you nor I need to become an expert to access troves of free and available information proving or disproving various hypotheses. I urge you to learn from as many sources as you can instead of thinking up one-line zingers that reinforce your false equivalence beliefs.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We live in a wonderful time where neither you nor I need to become an expert to access troves of free and available information proving or disproving various hypotheses. I urge you to learn from as many sources as you can instead of thinking up one-line zingers that reinforce your false equivalence beliefs.

                >you have access to the official texts of the scientific priesthood
                >they are free for you to peruse and memorize (until we decide to change them because the science is now different)
                >so I would encourage you to spend time memorizing these things we've told you are truths
                >so that you may better understand the truth that is true truth in our scientific works
                >blessed is he that dare not asketh how, but simply hurrr durr scienceman gud

                Literal churchBlack person behaviour.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you should read as much as you can, don’t blindly accept things
                >STOP CONTROLLING ME YOU’RE JUST AS BAD AS MY b***h PASTOR

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >For example, do you believe the earth is flat? Some people do, at least until many of them realized that you can purchase off-the-shelf laser pointers and gyroscopes to test the theory yourself.
                This is EXACTLY what this anon was talking about here

                [...]
                >here's a simple demonstration showing that water boils at 100 degrees celsius
                >that's science baby!
                >also the universe is 13.7 billion years old
                >because science
                >it's all science
                >all of it

                .

                First of all, NOBODY believes in flat earth. They are trolling (and scaming) morons. You take the simple, easily-verified fact that the Earth is round and then just conflate it with total unfalsifiable theories that can't actually be demonstrated as easily. This is a very transparent parlor trick. For the sake of your own dignity, please stop doing this.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >flat earth is a false flag meant to discredit myself and other REAL free thinkers with our REAL skepticism of so-called “science”
                Your dignity is long gone at this point anon

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody is buying your flat earth conflations. The earth being round doesn't prove dark matter. It doesn't prove evolution. It doesn't prove relativity. It does prove gender queer theories. It doesn't prove that the Holocaust was real. It doesn't prove Israel. It doesn't prove Palestine. Etc etc etc

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You’re currently conflating genderqueer theories with biological evidence of evolution, so I don’t think you should accuse anyone else of false equivalence

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no u
                The last refuge of a scoundrel.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                dissembling zogbot, you’ve lost the argument badly and now you’ve got nowhere to turn. Just admit you’re every bit as stupid and self-harmful as a flat earther and maybe I’ll reward you by ignoring your existence

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Our source that it works is that we told you it works because here's a study we performed and checked ourselves that backs up the science we used to justify this other science. In other words it's true because we said this other stuff is true, and we based this stuff off that stuff. So therefore it's true. Stop asking questions now, we're the question askers and answerers.

                >here's a simple demonstration showing that water boils at 100 degrees celsius
                >that's science baby!
                >also the universe is 13.7 billion years old
                >because science
                >it's all science
                >all of it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I know exactly what you're talking about and I loathe this shit. Any time a sciencer is stuck on some logical fallacy that you expose them to, they immediately start conflating other proven truths as if some other scientific truth validates all popular modern science theories.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's the easiest way to identify them for the moronic zealots they are. Basically they use carnival tricks to dupe the average person by showing them something that is true and verifiable, then conflating it with things they can't prove because "hey we're the experts here".

                Same shit happened during the big coof era. We were told to appeal to the medical Arch Bishops and the Science Pope for all of our decision making because we're just dumb serfs who can't figure things out on our own.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Water boils at 100°C at sea level because of the air pressure there. The fact that you didn’t know this and needed a much more simplified version of the truth to fit in your head explains why natural selection and other concepts, including those found in organized religions, are so hard for you

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And there, the redditard comes full circle. When you force them to concede their arguments are also faith-based and unproven they just call you dumb and pout about it.

                That's it gayboy, take the ball and go home because you realize you'll never win this game.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                LMAO wait you think that explaining liquid boiling points is…faith based?
                AHAHAHAHAH get a load of this huge gay

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you arguing the boiling point of water is equivalent to cosmogony?

                >samegayging already

                ah jeez here we go

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nice faith based theory you got there buddy

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh I can prove it, I have the science to do so. But you're too stupid to understand it so I won't bother. Just trust me, it's science.

                You’re applying deep institutional mistrust of things like the LHC and astrophysical satellites to things which are much less “insulated” by a priesthood of specialists and cost barriers. For example, do you believe the earth is flat? Some people do, at least until many of them realized that you can purchase off-the-shelf laser pointers and gyroscopes to test the theory yourself. The same is true for other scientific theories like the theory of relativity and the process of natural selection.

                We live in a wonderful time where neither you nor I need to become an expert to access troves of free and available information proving or disproving various hypotheses. I urge you to learn from as many sources as you can instead of thinking up one-line zingers that reinforce your false equivalence beliefs.

                nta but basically you're saying that because some scientific theories are somewhat verifiable to the layperson it means we should assume all of them are. Because scientists wouldn't lie, ever. No reason for them to do that.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Like I said, you’re mistrusting an entire way of thinking because something or someone made you mistrust specific things you can’t empirically confirm from your current position. I’d be interested in you actually drawing the line between what’s “somewhat verifiable” and what’s in this weird technocult you keep referencing in your posts to the other anon. Because if you’ve put something in the “wrong” category, learn new information that convinces you it’s an okay theory, and then update your classification model, then you too are benefiting from the evidence-based reasoning process originally called the scientific method

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The only things you can reasonably know to be true are the ones you can personally experience and prove yourself.

                Anything else is, by definition, faith-based. Not even being argumentative, just objective. If you can draw this basic conclusion - which I'm sure you can - it's understandable why people would be skeptical of others claiming to be "experts". Particularly when we've witnessed so called experts brazenly lie to people to peddle their pseudoscience and quackery.

                There are "scientists" and "medical professionals" right now telling the world that cutting off kids dicks and drugging them with hormones is scientifically justifiable. That "race" is a social construct, not a biological trait. We all know the various examples.

                We have "scientists" telling us to distrust our own senses that, according to them, evolved over millions of years into an ever-perfecting system to keep us alive. But then we should just ignore all of them, including things like our basic instincts, in favour of nu-age quacks experimenting with pharmaceutical wienertails and using us as lab rats.

                If there was ever a time to distrust "science" it'd be int he 21st century more than ever. The way these morons are fricking around with AI is just more evidence of their blatant disregard for human life and it speaks to their moral integrity as a group. They'll tell you anything to con you into going along with their plans because they're simply curious and want to see what happens when they open Pandora's box. Like when the scientists told all those young men to march into radioactive clouds in New Mexico after testing atomic bombs. Hey, we're scientists, you'll be fine and your hair will grow back. Also ciagarettes are good for you, feed your newborn baby 7-Up! soda pop too. Don't forget to take your Thalidmide pills ladies, it's scientifically proven to cure morning sickness and is 100% safe!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for actually explaining your thinking system when I asked, it’s worth responding to.

                I think I understand your argument about faith to mean the act of trusting things you haven’t or can’t personally verify through empirical experience. If I’m right, I’d argue there are two types of “faith” - first, the kind you have in your own judgment and the judgment of those processes you’ve verified in other cases (like algebra working every time). And second, “faith” as in the socially learned kind where other people tell you to sit down, don’t ask questions, and trust the wisdom of your tribal elders.

                I also think you’re not wrong to distrust the institutions that have lied to us so repeatedly. The entire first chapter of Jurassic Park is about the danger of scientists being captured by the profit incentive. Doctors recommending cigarettes in ads, sterilizing unwitting blacks in the American south during fake trials, and prescribing fatal opiates to everyone in rural Pennsylvania would make anyone with sense get a second opinion before taking a vaccine.

                But where I disagree is in the first category. Lots of posts ITT are conflating “I haven’t yet understood this theory” with “this theory isn’t understandable” and even extrapolating that to “~~*they’re*~~ trying to stop me from understanding the truth”. You can learn the mathematical and data-based underpinnings to a scientific theory, apply them, and discuss with the people who also do so until you arrive at an understanding yourself. No one in a lab coat or priestly vestments can stop you from reading Principia Mathematica or the Origins of Species.

                I hope that your concerns with authority and its awful track record doesn’t prevent you from the joy of learning things that other, great men discovered in our past by replicating their experiments and possibly even improving on them.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The only things you can reasonably know to be true are the ones you can personally experience and prove yourself.
                You literally described science.

                There isn't a giant building somewhere that says "Science" on it. Scientific exploration happens on all levels, small and large, around the world. Most of it is boring as shit.

                >Which color of the visible spectrum (rainbow) does an infant look at for longest?
                >What are the looking time differences?
                >Are the time differences statistically significant or seemingly random?
                >[math and statistics]
                >We found this, this, and this. We're not sure about this. Here are possible future studies. Here are practical applications.
                >Dr. Anon, Dr. Moot, Dr. Banhammer, Dr. Sage
                And a new scientific bit has officially been added to the pantheon of human knowledge.

                The problem with the junk science you named is that there was not enough testing. This is taught in freshman college courses. "Look at how many tests were done and in what conditions and weigh that info accordingly." I'm not covering for the government. I also wonder why they went on TV and just said anything and mandated it. I don't agree with everything the government does.

                >tl dr
                Credible/well-documented science is good. Sloppy/rushed science is bad.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Careful, your figurative use of the word “pantheon” will set the brainlets off for another half hour

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The problem with science is that it's autistic. It's not looking at a cohesive picture of the world. It's only looking at what it can see and measure.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You’ve been projecting your churchhomosexualry onto scientific theories pretty hard there Anon

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you arguing the boiling point of water is equivalent to cosmogony?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you can test it yourself if you aren’t an idiot

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you can test it yourself
                >using our methods
                >don't like it?
                >fine, come up with your own way to prove things we just claimed
                >good luck, chud.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >conflating denial of isotopic dating with experimental clot shot refusal
                based well poisoner

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you're trusting the wrong science!
                >just believe our science!
                >it's the only real science!

                pretty sure south park even did an episode like this, i think it had beavers or something in it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If only there were some philosophy of verifying facts by looking them up somewhere, damn bro could you imagine?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                there is no such thing as facts

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The last refuge of the brainlet is a denial of all truth

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >believe in the only truth
                >sponsored by dr shekelberg

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                saying 'facts arent real so i win lol' is the israelite tactic btw

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh no you have to prove your point the normal way instead of appealing to a higher authority. Too bad you can't do it that way because evolution can't survive that way.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Oh no you have to prove your point the normal way instead of appealing to a higher authority.
                what do you think religion is exactly lmfao

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao you’re such a golem
                >”the normal way”
                Is that like when three 22yo construction workers drink rip its in the parking lot and complain about how bullshit school was? Or is there some rigor in there?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                t. guy who literally thinks he is a monkey

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Chuds believe facts are a israeli psyop, that’s why they don’t brush their teeth

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                like Wikipedia, or some ~~*peer reviewed*~~ studies perhaps?

                heck yeah!!!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes sweetie, all human knowledge is Wikipedia

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                um no that's not what I meant, but like I can't just go and ask my gay israeli trans professor every time I have a question, he's busy with his classes and speaking to politicians about the benefits of communism

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It sure was what you said though, lil moron

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                cool it with the antisemitic remarks

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >me no like tiny hat tribe
                >tiny hats write symbols on paper
                >therefore me burn all paper, no more tiny hat curse, now me free

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                why do you people always get religion the wrong way round? the correct scenario is:
                >person exists
                >HEY DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MAGIC DUDE I DONT HAVE PROOF
                >'uh ok....'

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You’re trying to describe tiny hat religion with that incoherent post, I assume

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the fact you think there is a difference between religions in terms of the faith required to believe them with no evidence is quite worrying actually

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Suddenly he believes in evidence
                Sorry your israeli golem religion provides little succor

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >facts arent real
                >evidence isnt real
                this is very convinient for the religious side considering those are the two things they dont have, that worked out nice

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A fact is a belief that doesn't know it's a belief

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but southpark told me!
                yeah you sound like the kind of moron who gets his ideas from israeli media

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >radiometric dating
                Ultra clean labs were created for the sole purpose of uranium-lead dating. Simply touching a sample will alter the lead content and throw off measurements. But it's still incredibly accurate.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What was Jesus like as a teenager and young man if we know so much about him?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a few years gap undermines the story of Jesus
                >now let me tell you about the weather a billion years ago

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >conveniently omit the most sinful years of a man’s life from the man who claims to be without sin
                how did jesus handle puberty? was he a hardcore lifelong no fapper? did he cum in his sleep regularly? did he jack it to fertility idols?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the man who claims to be without sin
                where does he claim that

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                when he threw that stone
                otherwise you’re saying god is a sinner?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >when he threw that stone
                lmao what the hell are you talking about? I love it when redditors try to argue about the bible based on something they half remember

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so you regard jesus as a sinner? god as a sinner?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He was basically a gay like all teenagers, thought he was tough and knew better than everyone else. Most people grow out of this but he stayed a libtard forever and kept spreading his UCLA bullshit until he pissed off some Chads who kicked his ass and nailed him to a cross. Jesus was basically a 30 year old redditor who got what he deserved.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A split of your DNA becomes the sperm, that is microscopic and full of variation, you can't produce a giraffe, but there is still some variation in that range. No choice, no selection so far. Imagine if a couple had 1000 kids and decided to rank them from tallest to shortest. Even though the parents are both of regular height, you can expect taller and shorter people amongst their children. If that characteristic is relevant for them to survive, they can pass that to their kids.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >sciencecucks think this will evolve into a human if you leave it there long enough

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Picture all of the sodium, iron and calcium from the earth that is currently running in human bodies right now.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You dumb homosexual you don't even believe that shit. Invent a neural network from the sodium and calcium you dumb homosexual. Take the science daddy dick out of your ass.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >he doesn't believe in sodium, iron and calcium

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can't put sodium and calcium in a tube and get a neural network

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So it's not designed.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                「Wonder of U」?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Evolution really is absurd if you think about it for literally 10 seconds and don't let some Lawrence Krauss looking nerd snark deter you from doing basic logical thinking for yourself.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Evolution isn’t absurd if you take a second to think about how your kids look like you, and if everyone else dies off but you and your family, then the human race has evolved to be like you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >how your kids look like you,
                No. That's fine. I can understand simple chromosomal imprinting. I can't understand how a hypothetical (unproven) half-fish, half-chicken creature crawled out of the ocean and fricked themselves into a human. You gotta go an awful long way to from point A to point B, you feel me?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You do have to go an awful long way. It took billions of years. You perfectly understand.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the problem is that to get a mutation that benefits the fitness of the organism instead of harming it is very rare, like longer than the history of earth rare.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine you were having a dream and you had a kid in the dream who looked like you. Would you assume that the kid in the dream had evolved over millions of years from rocks? Or did he exist because frick you that's why?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If monkeys evolved into humans, how come there are still monkeys?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If monkeys evolved into humans, how come there are still monkeys?

                STOP ASKING QUESTIONS

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, a humonkey you might call it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We all evolved from a common ancestor. A single celled organism, the first life on earth. Then for no apparent reason we turned into billions of different things just randomly because the sun cooked us all.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                wtf I love god now

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                AI needs millions of cycles in order to learn how to walk. If you think evolution happened in one go where we have a fully functional human brain by banging rocks together you are moronic.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You say it isn't random, but it's not a conscious choice. So if it's dictated by our environment that means our DNA must somehow "talk" to our senses, even on a subconscious level. That doesn't sound random to me at all, sounds like the kind of thing that would happen if someone felt it would be advantageous. You know, like MACHINE LEARNING.

                But no, that would mean something might've designed us and that's impossible.

                I'm not even religious but I frickin hate sciencecucks more than religious cucks, at least the latter just straight up admit "yeah it's just my faith no proof or anything" and move on with their day.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I used to think this. But if you look at the arms race between plants, other plants and insects, it goes so fast. And it's pretty elaborate. Makes me think there's someting else to evolution

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you moronic? It explains that exactly. One genetic frick up is born. The genetic frick up doesn't die. Passes it's genes on, in some instances, this frick up is actually beneficial. So if offspring inherit said frick up, gene they have a more likely chance passing it on to more offspring. And it's not like one animal was just born entirely green, it's a series of genetic mutations over millions of years.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Do you have any evidence of this happening? Hs it been observed by Scientists?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, This guy

                Are you moronic? It explains that exactly. One genetic frick up is born. The genetic frick up doesn't die. Passes it's genes on, in some instances, this frick up is actually beneficial. So if offspring inherit said frick up, gene they have a more likely chance passing it on to more offspring. And it's not like one animal was just born entirely green, it's a series of genetic mutations over millions of years.

                is a "genetic frick up"

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

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

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              If it's a genetic frick up it wouldn't survive to pass on its genes according to evolution. And again, it's based on the idea of it just RANDOMLY happening. It's all RANDOM. Completely discounts the possibility that perhaps our DNA is designed to interact with us in ways we can't sense. Like all of our sensory input communicates on a chemical level with our DNA to reflect stuff like common lighting patterns or the need for larger eyes to operate in dark caves. That would make far more sense than your petulant reddit sciencegay LOL ITS RANDUM U IDIOT theory.

              Darwin was a frickin homosexual btw, moron incel loser married his frickin cousin. Guess he didn't quite understand the GENETIC EFFECTS of incest.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Guess he didn't quite understand the GENETIC EFFECTS of incest.
                That's actually what started his fascination with evolution. He had no idea why his kids were all downies and devoted his life to finding out why he couldn't raw dog his cousin.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I hope you're not really this moronic. That isn't how natural selection works.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              everyone knows the theory of natural selection you cringe reddit gay holy shit, we're asking questions way beyond your 10th grade science class understanding of biology so either contribute or shut the frick up and go farm updoots somewhere else

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >molecules will get more and more complex until they form cells.
          >literally no examples of this ever happening

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are a lot of examples of this anon. Self replicating molecules are technically for first type of life.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              If you could make one and then have it replicate by itself that would prove something, mostly that an intelligent being could make life. But tearing apart existing cells and then using a lab kit to put them back together isn't proof of abiogenesis.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There are experiments done that demonstrate organic compounds being created in order to form proto-rna. We have been able to create proto-rna using various methods but it's uncertain how it came to be naturally. Getting the molecules to stay stranded together is the unsolved part.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >most favorable laboratory conditions possible
                >still doesn't work
                Really shouldn't take a scientist to figure this one out.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                go look at the bottom of one of these papers and look at the massive list of reagents and protocols they use to get their dismal results, it's bananas.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        science also doesn't explain where the big bang came from. It simply assumes it happened because it just did, ok?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Its worse than that. The double slit experiment proved that the world doesn't exist unless you're looking at it. They want us to believe in evolution while knowing that everything is fake.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            false, the 'looking' at it you refer to involved bouncing light off the particles which changes the outcome, the whole being observed thing is a red herring, this information is all available online by the way

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              fake and gay

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's a fallacy and here's why. If you create an ant farm and the ants develop intelligence and wondered where they came from and all they could see was their own ant farm and concluded there was no Creator of the ant farm despite the fine tuning of heat, light, water for the ant farm that would be just stupid. This is why atheists are just idiots!

        Looking for evidence of the Creator within the created system is always going to be impossible as the Creator exists outside of the created system. Instead you have to look for evidence of fine tuning of the created system and planning/order within the created system as evidenced you were created. And before anyone brings up entropy, recent scientific discoveries have established the 3rd law of thermodynamics only applies to non information systems and information systems naturally build to greater complexity. Guess what the universe is? An information system.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >omnipotent being has big project to create supposedly "chosen" species
      >sets the timer for 13.7billion years and give 'em plenty of space to evolve from singlecelled organisms into fish into fishfrogs into lizards into furry not-lizards into apes.

      Truly, a divine work of art conceived by omnipotence.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What if he just thought it was fun to watch in real time instead of create the end result? Why can't God have fun?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >13.7billion years
        For a being that exist outside our reality, that could be a blink of an eye. Or experiences time in a way that we can't even comprehend with our feeble human minds.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what if god doesn't have an conception of time?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          is he dumb?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            just a slob like one of us?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then he's not God because that would make him not all-knowing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, he can see the future or past just like us looking across a field or something. time is just a part of god.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        like why not though? if it’s something so incomprehensible it engineered our reality why wouldn’t it do something that seems incomprehensible to us?

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He wasn't upset neither was Phoebe, Phoebe was just teasing him because she cries herself to sleep every night due to Ross chasing after Rachel and not her. Ross should have been with Phone, Rachel should have ended up alone, Monica and Chandler were ok. If you pay attention to the show Phoebe always wanted Ross...in that one episode where they're about to frick I almost came because I ship them so hard. The thought of Phoebe with Ross gets me hard.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you are a weird person

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This was top 5 moments in television history as far as I'm concerned

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's Ursula

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          gay

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Who was phone?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rachel should have been with Chandler as they’re the best characters and actors, Pheobe with Joey because they’re both dumbasses, while Monica remains fat and alone and Ross gets hit with a homemade Hamas rocket.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    blind science people are just as bad as religious cult people. Both have flaws but science is way more believable than an invisible man living in the sky.
    Science should always be questioned but anyone that follows religion should be treated like a child.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      science isn't even fricking real. the word doesn't actually refer to anything.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Atoms turned into fish, which turned monkeys, and then the monkeys gave birth to a human

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, and your wife fricked a black guy which is why your son's dick is bigger than yours.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >redditor immediately thinks of black wieners and cuckholdry
        Like pottery

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because BAZINGA!

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    science isn't even fricking real. the word doesn't actually refer to anything.

    christ cucks
    At least science tries to explain things. Religion is just "God did this..uh because" without any explanation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I’m a pagan

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"DNA just MUTATES man"
    >"proof? well it's extremely rare and we can't capture it"
    >"but it has happened billions of times in exactly the right direction to ensure survival of a species"

    This is what materialists actually believe

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not rare at all. Your cells are mutating all the time. It's just that most of them don't create sperm or eggs, so those mutations will die with you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cells =/= DNA.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Holy science cuck. You are twisting the world into a pretzel to make science work. Just admit it looks like it was done on purpose.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'll take cancer for all the marbles, Alex.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can Phoebie explain how to use Pot of Greed?

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is literally no empirical evidence evolution is true. All the fossils "prove", and even then not really, is that some species may possibly have gone extinct.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He was right about Newton though

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because its his career and lifes work

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. A large part of his identity is built around evolution, Phoebe not believing in it is like a rejection of him personally.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Phoebe had secret big breasts. That is what is important.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Could you post them?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >just trust me.
    >because they just did.

    Yeah this is a perfect summary of "science" in the 21st century.

    >sub 60 IQ post

    Go get another booster homosexual.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There has to be more to life. I don't have a clue what it is, but there has to be more, because this isn't it.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this defeats the evolutionist

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      try cell membranes with tens of thousands of phospholipids all working in unison, each one a distinct molecule. I guess just self-assembled one day when it found a pool of already functioning dna. I mean the more you know the more absurd the "theories" become that have no hypothesis much less any working principle behind them.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's a dinosaurologist

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Daily reminder that macroevolution has never been observed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >observed.
      >notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
      What are fossil records.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >thing exists
        >this proves my theory about how it was created

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >multiple things exist that can be traced to certain time periods and ancestors
          Yeah anon that's kinda how it works.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >what is luca
        Also shared DNA between species.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >never been observed
      because you can't 'observe' something that takes many human life times in one single human life time, moron

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How can one "believe" when it comes to science?
    Is there something you want to share with everyone?

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't it weird how entropy always increases and simple systems never spontaneously become more complex, except in the case of evolution? Just in that one case we're supposed to believe that a million random actions over a long time will randomly cause something that hasn't ever existed before.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Isn't it weird how entropy always increases and simple systems never spontaneously become more complex
      But that's wrong.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in an isolated system can't decrease over time through spontaneous processes.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >isolated system
          You're forgetting about the sun too, dude. I guess the issue I have with your other post is the word 'spontaneously.' What exactly do you mean by that?

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution is fun to dunk on, sure. But we can all agree that the biggest science homosexual cope is their so called "big bang". It's a metaphysical prime mover but it's a magic inexplicable explosion instead of a god so it's totally different, guys.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At the time this came out very few people believed in evolution. America was a Christian country, so the ~~*media*~~ were desperate to shame people into turning their backs on god. Every show had to take an extreme atheist stance in order to subvert the masses. The strategy has since shifted to Islamic replacement so hard atheism is less common now.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are absolutely no advantages to becoming multicellular. Unicellular organisms dominate every biome all over the universe. They dominate environmental adaptation, metabolism, reproduction, etc. Darwinian theory makes no sense as no organism is better adapted to the environment than the unicellular organism.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good point, if the DNA only wants to propagate there's no reason for it to make these big animals wasting so much time and chemical energy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >multicellular.
      >larger so you can absorb smaller cells
      >more cells make you even larger, giving you more food sources and the ability to devour smaller cells
      There is always a bigger fish.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Show one environment where multicellular organisms dominate unicellular. You can swab any surface on any habitat on the planet, and the unicellular will always dominate.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most evolution believers take it on faith alone. They can't name any of the proofs of evolution. I can but they can't. They are no better than any other group of faithful.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can see evolution in real life. Just look at mixed race kids. Then imagine all the non mixed kids died out. Goulash, evolution!

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >creatards itt
    This shithole is just completely full of shit brown Black folk at this point

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only white vax-takers really believe the gay science shit. Everybody else just goes along but know it's probably all bullshit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You reap what you sow, rabbi.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jennifer Anniston nipples

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      haha yeah

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sex gifs

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    he's israeli

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >evolution is real
    >but genders aren't

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's that thing he hit him with?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Idk, I think it's some sort of time machine. I saw an old movie once and the guy would travel through time by picking up something that looked very similar.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sciencecucks getting BTFO ITT ngl I am enjoying it

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this show actually funny or normie shit like HIMYM/every other Friends clone I've seen?

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nowadays douchebags like him have their own sites like r*ddit and xitter

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most likely explanation is that we're some experiment from a higher race of beings. We create shit like robots and AI, and even use eugenics to create hybrids and study them in different environments. Why is it more likely that shit happened randomly than by design?

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists been real quiet since this dropped.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone is an atheist. “Atheists” are just atheists about one more religion than usual. You don’t believe in Hindu gods. You’re an atheist.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t agree with that. Both a hindu and christian believe in a supernatural or non physical reality and intelligent beings that exist in it, they disagree on what they are though and how they interacted with people. Both aristotle and newton believed in physics, neither were physics atheists even if they disagree on how it all works

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    he's a israelite and they don't like it when the goyim don't trust the ~~*science*~~

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lefties believe in the more outrageous and unlikely parts of evolution (that life began out of nothing for no particular reason and grew into amoebas then fish then people) while denying the more obvious and clear parts of evolution (divergent environments lead to different groups of people being wildly different)

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Evolution is just a theory.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics) ... One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >>The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word
        Lol. More parlor tricks.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Words mean different things in different disciplines, you fricking moron.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Appeal to authority is a fallacy

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I believe in evolution 100%, except with blacks, evolution magically doesn't affect them and their lower iq and lower mental ability is due to purely socio-economic factors and racism.
    >Every moron that believes in evolution

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    imagine, this many angry dumb dudes just in one thread, all on our planet.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All I know is that I know nothing

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the theory of evolution were real there would not be any atheists because they don't reproduce.

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

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

    tldr; the rabbis said evolution is real therefore disagreeing is antisemetism.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ross is a paleontologist

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >You don't trust the science?
    >I AM THE SCIENCE

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit the astronomical levels of moronation going on here is incredible, education has failed and only Sky Papa can save us now

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Friends thread

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >that malding rusBlack person
    KWAB, rent free

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Autism

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Evolution believers when you apply natural selection to humans

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ross was in the wrong
    Because despite studying the evidence first hand. He admitted doubt in himself.

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