Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[JackRussell]

Fuck me, there are so many only a complete idiot could deny them.

I would post them here but even a moron could search for examples online and the list would fill too much room.

Only liars or imbeciles couldn't research this.

If you want, I can produce phylogenetic groups showing this.

Creationist's don't care though. Been here before.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Now to explain about the 24 hour fruit fly. You are making assumptions about how quickly evolution works. What you are also ignoring and probably don't remember or know because you do not understand the theory of evolution, is that there needs to be evolutionary pressure for a species to adapt. There may have been hundreds of thousands of generations and plenty of mutations, but there has no been evolutionary pressure in your example for the fruit fly to change in any significant way so the mutations do not propagate throughout the population.

Yet the Peppered moth is an example of rapid change taking place because of a strong environmental pressure.

Another example, African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

You are also deliberately ignoring the point I made before, that the fossil records show evolutionary change happening over a much longer time span. So of course persistent large scale changes have not been made in the short time span that you are referring to. The evidence in the fossil records shows though that evolution does happen over longer time scales. It is also inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Again it's a strawman argument from you because scientists aren't claiming that such large changes happen in such short time scales.

Already answered. Are you going to continually spam us with the same points and not listen to the answers?

Right dipshit, let me put it another way. What evolutionary pressure is on the fruit fly populations contained in a lab to 'morph into something else'? What would it 'morph' into?

If you understood the theory of evolution (you don't) then you'd know that natural selection drives evolution. There needs to be a sustained pressure for a new evolutionary strategy to be adopted. A species won't 'morph' into a new species just out of random chance, we're talking a myriad of beneficial mutations to be provide an increase in evolutionary, which means a greater number of neutral and harmful mutations happening as well which don't propagate throughout the population.

This is why there are some species that are so well adapted to their environment that they have hardly changed in millions of years. For example:

https://www.thoughtco.com/crocodiles-the...rs-1093747

Of all the reptiles alive today, crocodiles and alligators may be the least changed from their prehistoric forebears of the late Cretaceous period, over 65 million years ago

Now to explain about the 24 hour fruit fly. You are making assumptions about how quickly evolution works.

No. I am not. I am simply point int out we have studied inner species changes given hard environmental pushes under perfect evolutionary conditions to try and force an species change and at best we just make another type of 24 hour fruit fly.

Utter bollocks. The fruit fly in lab conditions are in a stable environment where they are fed and bred for experiments precisely because they are so well studied, so scientists don't want them to change.

But when scientists have ran an experiment to see how fast evolution can happen then it is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution. I am specifically thinking of the siberian foxes in Russia

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

The Russian domesticated red fox is a domesticated form of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). They are the result of an experiment which was designed to demonstrate the power of selective breeding to transform species, as described by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species.[1] The experiment was purposely designed to replicate the process that had produced dogs from wolves, by recording the changes in foxes, when in each generation only the most tame foxes were allowed to breed. In short order, the descendant foxes became tamer and more dog-like.[2][3]

The program was started in 1959 in the Soviet Union by zoologist Dmitry Belyayev[2] and it has been in continuous operation since.

And just because you are denying that you are making assumptions about the time scale it takes for evolution to happen doesn't mean to say that you're not. The fossil record shows us that evolutionary change at the type of scale you are talking about (i.e. 'morphing') happens over geological time spans.

[The Grand Nudger]

Crocs, fitness is high, generation cycles are long.  Seeing them "morph" into something else would cast doubt on evolutionary theory, not confirm it. Nevertheless, whatever they "morphed" into would still be related to crocodiles, as the most recent origin of their new species...and we'd expect them to look a whole lot like...wait for it, crocs. Just as crocs are recognizable ancestors of their archosaur forebearers.

[JackRussell]

Pre-Cambrian rabbits or crockoducks.

Fuck creationists are so ignorant.

dendro evidence
fossil evidence
radio-carbon
genetics
varves
ice cores
geological and tectonic evidence
morphology
climatic
paleo-archaeological
historical
linguistic
physical
cosmological
chemical

Fuck....

The bible story is just wrong on any level.

No evidence for gods, until provided.

Burden of proof and all that..........

[Succubus]

Therefore calling his nonpunctuated nonsensical posts into question is fair game.

Tedious attention to detail is the hobgoblin of the small mind.

Edit: And just for you, here's this again...

I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average creationist in the U.S. earns $21,387.29 in family income; owns 1.2 cars, 1.8 TVs, and 2.3 kids; and has, at some point in his life, answered to the name "Bubba". He has less than one year of college. Yet he knows more about paleontology than Bakker or Horner or Currie (or he thinks that what they know is wrong--same thing). He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr. He knows more about cosmology than Hawking, Smoot, or Witten, and more about human fossils than Johanson or the Leakeys. He knows more "true" geology than geologists, more physics than physicists, more astronomy than astronomers--and more about everything than atheists like Asimov or Sagan. Humble, they're not.

[Huggy Bear]

Therefore calling his nonpunctuated nonsensical posts into question is fair game.

Tedious attention to detail is the hobgoblin of the small mind.

So if I post examples of your fellow atheists correcting my grammar, are you going maintain that same position?

[Succubus]

Tedious attention to detail is the hobgoblin of the small mind.

So if I post examples of your fellow atheists correcting my grammar, are you going maintain that same position?

If they're doing it for piss taking purposes, no. If they're doing it because they're pedantic twats, yes.

[Amarok]

Huggie lives under the presumption we never disagree or are never critical of other atheists .

---

Morph is not a evolutionary term .

[Edwardo Piet]

So if I post examples of your fellow atheists correcting my grammar, are you going maintain that same position?

If they're doing it for piss taking purposes, no. If they're doing it because they're pedantic twats, yes.

As a genuinely pedantic twat, and glad of it, I am pretending to be highly offended by that statement right now.

Pedantry FTW.

Of course, I correct my fellow atheists over tedious things too.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Morph is not a evolutionary term .

Yeah but surely inner species morph?  

I don't think Drich was using any evolutionary terms. But then he doesn't understand the theory of evolution but suffers from Dunning Kruger so doesn't realise..