Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RonSwansonsOldMan t1_j89x7eq wrote

LOL...Evolution is such cheap junky science. No respectable scientist believes in evolution as anything but a fairy tale.

−109

No_Flounder_9859 t1_j8a289x wrote

I’ll bite. What do the respectable scientists believe in as an alternative explanation?

35

RonSwansonsOldMan t1_j8a3b3j wrote

They don't know. But it's embarrassing to not know, so they just go with the popular theory. It keeps the grants coming in. They shouldn't be embarrassed, because it's impossible to know with any certainty what happened 54 million years ago.

−55

No_Flounder_9859 t1_j8a4fl1 wrote

I think you are dumb.

40

RonSwansonsOldMan t1_j8a4qz4 wrote

And?

−45

alcapwnage0007 t1_j8a59va wrote

And as a peer, I have reviewed their findings and come to the same conclusion.

40

RonSwansonsOldMan t1_j8a5pin wrote

The thing you don't seem to understand is that we're not talking about my intelligence, but of the intelligence of so-called "scientists" who advocate such a ridiculous "science" as evolution. Not to mention the intelligence (or lack thereof) of their followers.

−16

dontyousquidward t1_j8aa5u9 wrote

you can go to Chicago or NYC museums and see bones of animals that resemble and pre-date modern animals. if not for evolution, why are there sloth and armadillo bones the size of a Volkswagen? they just... got smaller. but that's not evolving I guess

25

No_Flounder_9859 t1_j8aeqty wrote

This man is the reason that legal writing has to be done at an eighth grade level

16

RonSwansonsOldMan t1_j8aje7b wrote

Legal writing is very complicated. I should know, being a retired attorney.

−8

[deleted] t1_j8c4oai wrote

Ah so you’re old and senile, that explains a lot

8

alcapwnage0007 t1_j8ahzum wrote

If you can posit an actual explanation besides evolution on your own using science and evidence, I'll read it.

And I'll give you bonus points if you do it without saying God did it

14

RonSwansonsOldMan t1_j8ajbev wrote

I can't. Because it's impossible to know with certainty. I admit I don't know, and don't make up fake crap about it.

−5

Lileowastaken t1_j8ald2d wrote

It's impossible to know anything with certainty. Therefore you might as well not exist at all to me.

10

alcapwnage0007 t1_j8amv1r wrote

I give you points for honesty. However, I think it's worth giving weight to the general agreement of so many scientists. You admit you don't know, and that's okay. You didn't focus your life on that. But some people have.

You say you are or were an attorney, so you understand records, surely? Documentation? Historians work with records and context to fill in where records fail. Detectives and crime scene investigators do the same.

Archeologists do the same on a much larger time table. We don't know the exact time and date that things happened, we know they happened a long time ago. We can estimate how old dirt is. We can use that to guess when this water horse lived and died. We see that the fossilized water horse was NOT the same creature as the ones we have, but that the creatures have similarities. We can look at how the bones of a whale match the bones of a horse with some modification. We can see the same sort of bone shape changing in different breeds of dog.

I will say this: I offer my apologies for calling you dumb.

I will ask: simply consider?

10

RonSwansonsOldMan t1_j8anho5 wrote

You know, one simple word would resolve this whole controversy with me and I would shut my mouth. That word is "theory". When scientists dropped that word when speaking of evolution, they lost my respect as fact-based scientists.

−2

alcapwnage0007 t1_j8ar9sz wrote

I'd argue that it is at least partially proven, but I will cede that it is technically still theory.

3

Totalherenow t1_j8bpiix wrote

The creationist you're discussing with doesn't understand what a theory is in science. It's a confirmed scientific model, confirmed by hypothesis testing. He thinks that his ignorance somehow constitutes an argument, but all it does is tell us how uneducated he is.

4

Jamie___May t1_j8lr5bz wrote

How do you feel about the theories regarding gravity?

1

oceanduciel t1_j8ejla2 wrote

Ron Swanson would be disappointed in your denial of reality.

1

LordCaptain t1_j8amayj wrote

I'm going to try to avoid treating you like an idiot like most people here have and instead try to explain some things.

Evolution is based in reality and our long study and observation of the world.

We can start by saying that we do not have to rely solely on ancient fossils for determination.

There has been a long running study of evolution in bacteria that has run since 1988 and over 70 thousand generation where we have watched genetic adaptation in real time.

This has been replicated by other studies which have been running for shorter times.

We can stay modern and go outside of the lab environment though. Frog species around chernobyl have turned pitch black in an adaptation to protect from radiation evolving pigmentation and protection.

Then there is a classic of science that we can confirm things from seperate independant sources. We can roughly catagorize species based on similar traits and did so for a long time before being able to confirm these lineages through DNA and genetic evidence.

Then there is simply the fossil record. We can look back at fossils throughout history and see plain evidence of evolution and adaptation over time.

I encourage you to challenge your belief and look further into evolution and you will find that there is a vast amount of evidence for it.

23

gwaydms t1_j8c5ow1 wrote

>Frog species around chernobyl have turned pitch black in an adaptation to protect from radiation evolving pigmentation and protection.

This is natural selection rather than evolution, although it certainly does play a part in evolution. It might be a fine point, but it's an important one.

0

Larkson9999 t1_j8co2x0 wrote

Natural selection is evolution though. Helpful adaptations over millions of years causes different species.

7

LordCaptain t1_j8e4e5u wrote

It is evolution through natural selection but it is still most definitely evolution. It's a net directional change in the population. There isn't an arbitrary point where it turns from natural selection to evolution as the two aren't so simply separated.

1

gwaydms t1_j8emi2r wrote

I didn't say they should be. I said natural selection is part of evolution, as are phenomena such as founder effect.

1

Totalherenow t1_j8bptii wrote

All evidence supports the theory of evolution. No evidence disputes the theory. It's therefore considered confirmed in science, and is the framework theory for all biological sciences.

Your ignorance is not an argument. It's just you telling us how little you understand science and biology.

8